當我們是設計師的時候又如何

OL 設計實用形格 'why' is it design that way
以上的字眼令我想到當我們身為設計師設計我們的身體（俗稱朔身）之時不也演練著這個耐人尋味的情境嗎

暗地裡去職業安全健康局投訴啦

先前都有電話公司比人告啦.
我又打死都唔信無一種既適合人類使用又有型格的設計

補充的補充

多謝小西的補充．

我同意設計師無法擺脫資本主義企業，那個水樽的確不是設計師自己的作品／產品．

不過游靜談的，的確是設計教育，或設計這玩意的意識形態，不少人或設計師自身，會認為那個名師的作品很了不起，會以為設計師可以在作品上表現或找到個性及獨立性，甚至是救苦救難烏托邦．

有一位意大利佬，叫Manfredo Tafuri，寫過一本當今較進步的建築史界人人皆讀的書－－Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development，它的起手式就是這個問題．

其實大部份著名建築師亦如此，每個都是自命風格主義者，用Tafuri的話，是自欺欺人為建築作品穿上意識形態的外衣．

問題可能不在設計師的身上

我不傾向這麼快便把問題算到設計師的頭上。記得游靜那篇文刊出來時(其實是有關watson蒸漏水水樽的設計的批評)，我們一班朋友在電郵中也討論過，其中一位在英國讀書的朋友的發言，我想相當有point，而我想他也不會介意我轉貼於此。我想我的朋友可能對，問題可能不在設計師的身上﹕

Interesting. But I think rather than asking who design it or how good/bad is the design, "WHY" it is design that way will be a more important question. So is it just some stupid designer with bad ideas?

Ar... Where is the part of designer in the matter of bottle water design anyway?

The first question she asks is the size. First, there is the marketing team being asked to find new product and they do all the research and make sure that there is a market for the bottle water of such size. And they look in to other brand to see if they got similar stuff ,how bad will the competition be etc .And finally its up to the supermarket to decide if they are going to put them on selves or not . And usually the size is 1Lit 2L half L. Whatever easy to measure and produce, and never base on human daily intake. So for the size, no part for the designer here.

Then they calculate does the market volume worth opening a new production line for the product, labour cost, equipment cost, extra cost for storage (storage for one size is always cheaper then storage for 2 sizes), and most importance the bottle cost, yeah the bottle was usually more expensive then the water inside, and smaller the bottle, the higher it cost relate to the whole production cost. So it may also explain why the bottle is so thin, cheaper. And as a by product of oil, it really matter these days, since oil isn't cheap. The designer wasn't here yet.

So finally, we only left with the bottle cap that can't be open? So we sure it is a bad design then? But wait, here comes the designer’s part. Yep, ever wonder what that little thin layer is for? The silly little thing you have to get rid every time? To keep the water clean and save? For your health and safety? no no no no , its not for us . Since the bottle is being made so thin to save cost, it’s more difficult for the company to store and transport the product. They can’t stockpile it high on top of each another, the bottle was too thin and wasn’t able to bare the pressure, and water might leak out. Here’s the designer’s solution. Give it a strong and hard to open cap, a big one too, to support the weight and pressure. And of course a little tap to avoid water leak too. That pretty big cap wasn’t that big because they want it to act as a little cup. It’s about they can store and transport more each time and cut the cost . It’s all about cost and profit. The part about why the product is still there on the market is really right. IT IS CHEAP.

So when I read the part “the design haven’t improve peoples living stranded of the people using it, it doesn’t make it easier to use … … “I found it really lovely, and hell yeah, it’s really what should be teach to the uni student - “To make the world a better place”. But in reality, it is not a matter of good or bad design, but what and who the design is for. Usually not for us. One thing is sure , always for profit .

Really, its not about good design against bad design, its about their profit against our pocket . So BYOB ! Just brings your own bottle next time! Cheaper and much less waste.

香港不少設計師自以為是

這篇文章令我深有共鳴，寫得非常有感覺；在香港，我碰過不少設計師，特別是跟空間有關的（建築師及室內設計的），都非常自以為是．

設計講style，講主題，卻很少講人的需要，我記得游靜也批評過香港的設計教育，就是這般講style，不理蒼生疾苦．

希望你可以早日脫苦海，可惜你的同事未能團結起來，向老闆爭取．

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "OL, 你是犧牲品"

當我們是設計師的時候又如何

暗地裡去職業安全健康局投訴啦

補充的補充

問題可能不在設計師的身上

香港不少設計師自以為是