Photo Entry: More from the farms.

Election campaign material used as scare-crow after the voting is over.








I guess someone went home without pants!

It's complicated...

( And no, I didn't intend to make this right after the Simplicity post, but it works!)

Taiwan is a religious place. Not religious-run state kind of religious, nor Mormon way of being religious. It's religious on the folk cultural aspects. Lots of cultural religious rituals and ceremonies. Lot's of "divine spirits". These are different from Buddha or God. They are more powerful spirits that live in a world above the mortal but is responsible of protecting their human followers and worshipers.

These so-called divine spirits can come from human origins or legends. One of the most worshiped goddess was a lady who sacrificed herself in a storm by holding a lantern at the fishing port so that fisherman can see where the coast was, so folks in Southern China coastal area worship her. Many of these divine spirits were once heros, or people who represented an ideology.

Superstitious or not, I enjoy it for the colors, sounds, graphics, performance, festivals and the fact that it humbles people.

The following was taken at a major temple that worships an important divine spirit that were once the top government officials back in the Ming dynasty. People establish smaller "branches" in various locations and occasionally, those "branch-representative" divine spirits come back to the HQ to pay respect to the big guy, like how managers feel that it's important to visit the corporate HQ to not feel being forgotten. They will attach themselves onto chosen human bodies and perform rituals on their way into the temple. So the main guys in the photos are supposedly possessed at that moment, thus do not feel the pain from bleeding.

It's complicated, and I am not going to try to rationalize it. This is the beauty of it I guess. A simple concept- faith.

Simplicity

What a word! My ex employer used it in its branding tag line. My ex-manager from another company used it as his own personal tag line. It was once a forgotten word when the world looked to the lavish Victorian style, and later challenged again by the Arts and Crafts movement. Simplicity has been making a strong and steady come back, from contemporary art like Bauhaus and Minimalism to Braun and Apple. Everyone suddenly realized that "new" big thing in design and everyone swears by it, but very few get the idea.

One of the most basic principle that simplicity assumes is being essential. Of course, simplicity does not equal to essential. After all, styling itself is a luxury. However, when we take a look at shelves in stores today, the first thing we see are not the products, but something that is mostly meaningless and probably damaging, which is packaging.

I have friends who are packaging designers, so I can imagine two scenarios. Either that they will hate me for saying this, or that they feel the guilt and need for change. Well, I think packaging, for the most part, are unnecessary. Take produce as an example. Since when do we need to package each bundle of scallions in a plastic bag? When do we need styrofoam trays and plastic wraps to package meat? Or foam wraps for fruits like pears? Other than the egg tray, I can hardly find an example of produce that needs packaging. Then the world got a bit smarter and designers start to think about how to minimize packaging, or make it meaningful. Well, one obvious example is the Puma "Clever Little Bag" designed by Fuseproject. (I'm surprised that the firm's owner didn't just take all the credit on this one.) So it's basically a bag that is being given a box form using cardboard support.

Here's the link to this project: http://www.fuseproject.com/products-47

So the bag still needs to be made. Trees still needs to be chop down. Extra space will still be wasted on shipping because of the "box" form therefore efficiency is not optimized, therefore wasting fuel. The cardboard then needs to be thrown out for recycling (note that the waste material needs to be transported to the recycling center, requiring fuel), and so does the bag (the recycling process for the bag takes quite a bit more energy than recycling cardboard). So in the end, the packaging, as clever as they claimed to be, is still as stupid as ever, probably worse.

It's true that the bag can be used for other purposes, but consumers who made the choice to make that purchase didn't spend their money to buy a bag. They want the shoes. Or why not just give them the shoes? Why even bother wasting brain cells on coming up with a "clever" bag? You know, every person who I've met who claim themselves to be this or that end up proving to be the opposite. I will save my brain cells and not think too much into what this clever bag will prove itself to me.

In the world of consumerism, we are bombarded by everything sensual. Huge billboards with flashing graphics, colorful posters on product shelves, catchy tunes on radios and tvs ads, artificial scents released in theme parks... all to create certain assumptions in our minds about what we want, therefore stimulate consumption.

On another level, packaging design often are excessive because of the amount of messaging that the companies try to put on it. Brand logo, product name, ingredients/components, warning labels, instructions, bar codes, price tags etc. Imagine trying to package a pair of chopsticks.... Some are require by the law, some are there to evade liability. Some are out of greed and bad decision making.

Today as I was shopping at Carrefour somewhere in Taipei, I saw something incredible. First of all, I went to Carrefour for its good prices. Quality is another question, but since the item I was looking for is less quality-dependent, it made sense for me to shop there. Then I saw a bag of parts.... wait, where's its box? Where's the big product name with a hot model holding it? Where's the layers of cardboard box and clear window to tease me? Where's the bright colors to fill my vision? Where are the warning labels to scare me away?

None was there. It was just a bunch of parts packed in a transparent plastic bag with a really insignificant cardboard label that also functioned as a hook for the display shelf. I was quite surprised, because if you don't already know what the final product should look like, or if you are not paying attention to be looking for this specific item, you probably won't even know it's there. But why should you? If you never came to the store to look for it, if you never had the need for it, why should you know it's there? Won't that be a waste of everyone's time?

In a way, I wished that the plastic bag isn't even used, because in case of return, the bag would have been torn apart, so it will be a piece of thrash anyways. I also wished that no packaging designer was fired over this decision.

On a cultural level, it is interesting that consumers have been pampered to a point that we expect excessive packaging and messages, that without it, seems wrong or disrespectful, or cheap. It seems that the consumers need to be told every single thing about what it is, like saying a spoon is a spoon, to make the purchase justifiable.

This product that I saw was particular interesting because not many folks outside of Taiwan and China will know what it is, which is interesting in the stand point of "making sure that even the dumbest individual can figure out everything this product does" mentality. Say an Eskimo comes to Taiwan and looks at it, he will have no idea what it is, let alone the product being disassembled. Does it matter? May be it does because it may arouse the Eskimo to want to try it. May be it won't. It probably won't. So when we sell items that are so "every-day" to the locals, such as shoes, spoons, pens, hammer, screw driver, paper clips, staplers, tape holders, computer mouse, mouse pads, cups, mugs, shirts, fruits blah blah blah... do we really need to be told what they are?

I am not stupid (according to my mentioned experience, the opposite must be true), I don't think I need to be told the obvious so I feel that I am making the right decision. All I need to know is how it looks like, price point and anything about it that is different from what defines its fundamental identity as a product. If it's a spoon that also functions as a 9mm semi auto, sure I'd love to know that. However if it's a spoon that is "modern" as opposed to "classic", I think I can take some risk on that.

The bag of parts I saw at the store in its fabulous packaging.


What it would look like when assembled. (This photo is not taken by me, I don't own its copyright.)


This is what you can do with it. (Video linked from youtube, I don't own the copyright)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NfUBIUapSE

Standardization of Dehumanization

Warning: RANT post!!!

Here's a recent gradual realization: Human's effort in civil progression has only one main direction, which is dehumanization.

Standardization, institutionalization, automation. To create or produce or to affect the most with the least effort... we call it civilization. Regardless of the imperfect nature of us as humans, we seek ways to deny our own identity in pursue of becoming perfect.

After living through a world of institutionalized education system, then a few corporate jobs, and recent exposure to the world of scientific standardization, I realized that all of these are just efforts to create relevancy of oneself. Most of these so-called systems of judgement or score card are really just trying to create an impression of absolute from opinions.

First example:
When I was in X company, as a designer in a technology and manufacturing dominated world, we had to interface with engineers all the time, and convince them that we are not bullshitting them, as well as to get them to do their job better. In a highly politically competitive environment, designers had to find stupid ways to "leverage" their relevancy within the company, especially against those engineers. Engineers, like marketing people, live by their numbers. It's like their brains stop function as a humans and turn themselves into robot mode, think in ones and zeros. They look at score cards, spec sheets, performance numbers etc. So when a designer has an idea that results in abstract benefits like "perceived quality" or "user experience", the designer had to create his own "matrix". This is basically a stupid score card that rates an idea to see how it fairs when its being judged against different criteria. For example, say if a designer thinks that the handle to a door should be more bulky and rounder, he puts the idea against criteria such as "strength", "ergonomic", "cost", "durability", "torque required" etc. So he basically turned a romantic idea of having a candle light dinner into tangible numbers so his engineer bitch can understand the benefits and weigh if she should go out to dinner with him.

Second example:
At the same company X, in order to "leverage" design as an important and indispensable part of the company value, the department decided to create its own "matrix" system to rate engineering efforts. (DESIGN RATES ENGINEERING OMG!!!) In this case, it's the perceived quality of products. Criteria can be things like.... "how does the door feel when pulling it open", "does hinges make sound", "does handles feel solid", "sharp edges", "paint job" etc. Each criteria gets its own score, again, in numbers. So we are the engineers' bitches after all.

As a designer, what I really cannot accept is the standardization of user/customer/human needs. Basically, designers do their research. Whether the research result comes in the form of tangible numbers or abstract literature, images or description, it's really up to the designer to read what it means. So the designer goes off and do his own thing. However, when he comes to a design check point, he has to be managed just like any engineer or staff in the company. In order to "reduce risk", the company puts his design-in-progress against a standard matrix to see how it fairs by the company's standards, so they can make sure that every idea is a quality idea. Ok, so this reminds me of my school days when we went to school because we had to take the exam. Designers end up NOT designing for the user/customer/HUMAN's needs. The designer ends up designer for the matrix system because he is not judged by the human, he's judged by the system.

Third example:
In the many things I've been involved in designing, a few have key pads. No big deal, everything these days has key pads (although they are a dying breed of its own kind now). So here's a dilemma. A set of keys needs to be well-accessible to function as a good set of key pad. It however cannot be TOO easily accessible. So, yes, we designers and ergonomists understand this delicate balance and work our ass off to reach that perfect point. We consider things such as horizontal profile of the entire key pad contour, the lateral contour, each key size, distance between keys, height of partitions between the keys, the pressure to actuate the keys, the depth of the press to actuation, the profile of each key, the height of each key, key-lock function, audio feed backs, visual feed backs, touch feed backs blah blah blah. So after months of rigorous efforts within the design and engineering teams, we have come to the most well balanced design given the constrains. All goes well until the last minute when a senior dude comes down and say "It doesn't past the PENCIL TEST!!!!"

"Pencil test" WUT??? Basically, it's taking a pencil and rub against the key pad to see if it actuates any key. Why? Because there had been customer complains about key pads being inadvertently actuated before, like a loooooong time ago. The then engineers, out of desperation, invented this trick to test future key pad designs. Since there hasn't been similar complain ever since, they BELIEVE in it. So why do I get so worked up about this? First of all, every key pad design is different, used in different scenarios by different user groups. They look different, have different functions, different sizes, color, spacing etc. The devices are worn and used differently. So by using ONE standard test to rule out our effort of finding the most user-centered solution... well, it's bull shit. Secondly, if you are an engineer who claims that this test is so great, how come it's not repeatable? Tell me what's the diameter of the pencil to be used, the shape, the texture, how much pressure, at what angle, at what velocity...? No you can't, because you know it's bull shit.

Fourth example:
I like how engineers and technologists love to judge the quality of an experience using quantifiable means. For example, praising the quality of image of a DVD movie and its awesome special effects disregarding its actual content. So a censored porn can be top class too! Or, saying how great a piece of "music" is because of the technique or the players, the crispness and depth of the amplifiers etc, or praise how great an opera singer is without even knowing what the hell he's yelling to the crowd.

I also love how technologists and engineers feel awesome about their scientific logic, like it's going to save the damn world. There's this test to see how a material repels water. Basically you put the sample material on a stand at 45 degrees and let water drip on to it. Then you observe the water trail and compare it to a set of patterns in the hand book. You find the closest pattern and record the number that is associated to it as the rating of the repellent ability of the material. NO THAT'S NOT ALL! The "standard patterns" in the hand book are hand drawn, like some 3-year old's doodle! It's an international standard, used like a bible by millions of engineers world wide and is supposed to save the world! So basically, the test told me to turn an impression into an opinion and record it as an absolute. WAY TO GO HUMAN KIND!!!!!




In the generations of human civilization, we constantly betray ourselves by using standardization as an excuse to affect more with less. Before there was currency, we traded by needs. We first understand what we need, then pick an item that we own that we feel is of equal value and trade it for what we need. In another word, we KNOW what we need before we try to gain the means to satisfy the need.

In the world of standardized value, a.k.a moneeey, we just keep making money and make money. We desire to become rich, to have lots and lots of money... all before we even know how we are going to spend it. Money means nothing to the mother nature. However, to trade money for value, we have to use the earth's resources to trade. This means, we are taking unnecessarily and meaninglessly from the natural resource, a limited supply of necessities, to supply our blind desire to have more money. Then when we have all that money, we start to think about how to spend it, but we don't really need to, and garbage are produced. In a world of 100% efficiency, there should not be garbage. Just ask the cave men.

Then we created laws to standardize moral value. We created institutions, such as religions and schools to standardize thoughts, logic and ideas. We standardize lifestyles and culture through media. However, has the human kind become more "civilized"? Has the human kind gain more understanding about himself and the world he lives in? Has the human kind understand better his value to the rest of the world? Has the human kind become wiser? Has human kind become close to "perfection"?

All I know is, the human kind is still, if not even worse, lost souls running around trying to find ways to make itself feel relevant.