Kaitiakitanga has been described as guardianship or protection. The basic meaning of ‘tiaki’ is to guard, but depending on the context in which it is used, it also means to preserve, keep, conserve, nurture, protect and watch over. The prefix ‘kai’ with the verb ‘tiaki’ denotes the agent of the action of ‘tiaki’. Therefore, a kaitiaki is a guardian, keeper, preserver, conservator or protector. The addition of ‘tanga’ denotes preservation, conservation and protection.a

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2544-understanding-kaitiakitanga

Tiaki: Depending on the context used, it means to guard, preserve, protect, or nurture.

Kaitiaki: guardian, keeper, preserver, conservator or protector.

National Sword

The above link is a fantastic 99% Invisible podcast about the worlds current recycling situation.

For many years China had been the garbage dump for the Western world. 90% of recyclable material was bought by China and shipped in giant containers to shift the problem away from our shores. Recycling was collected, cleaned, sorted, then sent to China where it was turned into new stuff. Last year China decided to stop accepting most of the waste that was imported and so we had to find new places to send it. These new places didn’t have the infrastructure to process the waste that was being sent to them and they soon also stopped accepting waste. It’s gotten to the stage now that western recycling companies are paying third party companies to take their waste away from them. The recycling business is losing and soon we will no longer have the space to store all of our waste.

Investing in a recycling infrastructure of our own is extremely expensive so that isn’t an option for the near future. The solution is simple. We need to reduce the amount of stuff we produce and consume in the first place. Companies supplying products should be held accountable for what happens with the packaging of their products and what happens to the product after it is no longer useful. We also need products that don’t expire as quickly, they need to last longer. As consumers we need to take it upon ourselves to think of the environment when we make a purchase. That will mean making more expensive purchases but a purchase you can feel better about and one that will be more cost effective in the long term. Collaborative systems will be good for this.

Then reuse. I have mentioned this many times in this blog. Reusing used products is a fundamental shift we, as consumers, need to make by ourselves. Seeing the beauty in a used product only requires a shift in perspective.

Lastly, this documentary is the heartbreaking reality of the state of recycling in China. I am glad they are refusing our waste, for their sake.

Defensive Design’s goal is to moderate behaviour and limit the ways an object can be misused.

A park bench with a handrail in the middle is easily overlooked but is designed to stop people lying down and sleeping. To stop homeless people from sleeping in public spaces.

A leaning bar, found in train stations and bus stops are designed to give people temporary relief from standing. It doesn’t give you adequate support to have a rest. It prevents lingering and therefore moves people through the spaces faster.

These spikes seem like elegant modernistic embellishments on an otherwise boring concrete bench, but for a skateboarder it is a hazard and therefore prevents them from using it as a grinding bar.

The concept of Defensive design also goes by the name of hostile design. This is because the designers have gone out of their way to physically interrupt the way people use public spaces. Using the park bench as an example: the arm rest in the middle of the bench tells homeless people that they are not allowed to use this particular seat as a place to sleep.

In all cases the designer doesn’t intend to cause harm to anyone but in some cases the obstacles they have created to discourage public use can harm. For the example below it is obvious that this platform is not to be sat on, but for a blind person they may not realise that this is a seat not to be sat on.

Despite the concepts backlash, could this approach be applied to shared objects? How can we stop people from driving bikes drunk or vandalising or stealing them?

I want to take this concept and apply it to shared objects to discourage their misuse

After more thought it is quite ironic that I think this is a good idea because Apple have done this exact thing with their phones. Applying defensive design principles to their products they prevent outside parties from tampering with their electronics.
The designers designing the defensive aspect of products should consider the greater good as opposed to their companies or councils quick fix solutions. In some circumstances products shouldn’t be messed with but a phone should have a quick fix replacement battery. Greedy companies want you to buy more products instead of fix your old ones. Likewise, councils implementing hostile urban design should consider the wellbeing of their population and give solutions for the people looking for a place to sit, skate or sleep.

“Great designers create pleasurable experiences. A good experience determines how fondly people remember their interactions.”

Don Norman, The Design of Everyday things, pg 10

For things to be easy to use they need to be “discoverable”. Don Normans Fundamental Priciples of Interaction found in his famous book The Design of Everyday things, describes the properties discoverable product into four key components.

Affordances

An affordance isn’t a property of an object but a relationship between the capabilities of a person and the properties of an object. A possible action someone can take toward an object.
A door affords opening. A humans strength is capable of pushing or pulling a surface supported by hinges to swing open and closed.

Signifiers

These communicate where an action should take place. e.g. a door handle with a PUSH sign on it signifies how to open the door. Sometimes signifiers are accidental.
A door with JUST a handle signifies the ability to push and pull, despite whether the action is intended. (When you try to push a door open when it is actually a pull). A good designer is careful that their products don’t accidentally signify an unintended use.

Feedback

Communicates the result of an action. Without it, is like trying to hit a bullseye with an arrow without seeing the target. Users need to know that the action they have performed has resulted in what they intended.
The door opens when it is pushed. Feedback has to be planned and not be obtrusive.

Conceptual Models

This explains how something works. Clues come from signifiers, affordances, constraints, and mappings. The type of door handle indicates how the door is supposed to be opened: a knob, a handle, a push panel, a button, or an automatic opening etc…

Shared Objects

Shared objects don’t currently afford the need to be cared for. They are built to last, to withstand vandalism, and repeated use by multiple people. In order for shared objects to be cared for, their physicality needs to communicate with our instinctual care for our own possessions.
When a young child cries or lifts arms wanting care we immediately jump to help. The child has signified that it needs help by crying and lifting its arms. It knows that we are going to help because of the relationship the child has with you. You know how to help the child because you’ve done it in the past. The feedback comes when the child is no longer crying.
Currently shared objects are built from robust materials. These materials signify that they can withstand brutal conditions. Would shared objects be more looked after if they were made from materials that obviously required consistent maintenance? Would that signify the need for care? Likewise if they seemed precious would they be treated as if they were? What makes objects precious and cared for.

Like Apple and many other technology companies, Tesla don’t want their customers repairing their own cars. This guy buys old Teslas and uses their parts to repair and redistribute retired teslas. For a company like Tesla that is focused on sustainability, it isn’t very sustainable to leave a wrecked car rotting in a scrap heap. Everyone should have the right to repair their broken tech, much like their phones.

These days we are unable to reuse something because it was broken in the past or we simply want the best new thing. We tend to think new is better but in some cases second hand can be just as good as new. In actual fact second hand things have more charm as they have a story of their own. They’ve belonged to someone else and have gone through an extensive recovery process. Sometimes it is miraculous seeing the before and afterwards. I think this is lovely.

Similarly, this guy restores phones

When you can leave a bike anywhere people leave them everywhere.

There are obviously two different types of bike sharing. One where there are docks that you park up your bike and they get locked in place. Another that the bikes lock themselves, allowing users to leave them wherever they like.

Dock-less bikes are more convenient as you can find and leave them anywhere. Because of this, the bikes are left everywhere. These bikes litter the streets, they are vandalised and not cared for. How can design fix this so that these products that are built to last do last.

Mobike is a technology company in China making a durable bicycle. It doesn’t have a chain, it has a mobile locking system, no spokes and very few breakable parts. This is a good start but is it asking for people to try and break it?

I don’t really need to say how frightening and scary this video is because it speaks for itself. Apple products aren’t made by robots like we imagine them to be. They in fact are made by people. Thousands and thousands of people.

To find one silver lining in this very dim cloud for me is that they are in fact handmade. If I can save my old iPhone then I don’t need to bring another one into the world. I can save these poor people from making me another.

I don’t think the link works so here’s a few screenshots of what’s inside one of Apples Chinese factories.

• 

• 

• 

• 

I watched this video not long ago. The guy in the video went to Shenzhen, China, and assembled all the parts he needed to build an iPhone from scratch. The video really opened my eyes and made me realise that our devices aren’t these sealed mystical monoliths. Everything from banking to travel is on our phones and the thought of interfering something so precious is terrifying. The price of a smartphone is also a major deterrent. So one of my immediate thoughts was why isn’t there phone tinkerers like we used to have with car tinkerers. This question lead me to this video

It occurred to me that Smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung have built this ‘mystical monolith’ idea to make us feel like we can’t fix our phones. Purely because they would rather us buy new ones. Since the Apple 1, Apple haven’t wanted its products opened because Steve Jobs believed in a closed system. This gave Apple the ability to craft and design the user experience. From the way we see ads on TV to buying them in store to using them. Apple products have been designed from the ground up.

After reading Walter Isaacsons Steve Jobs, the closed system seemed like a sensible and innovative idea. But these days this design thinking has morphed into a profitable business model that allows Apple to come out with a new product every year that we simply must buy. Instead of having our old phone fixed, we throw it away and get a new phone.

Apple go to such great lengths to stop people fixing their phones, they even invented a new type of screw called the Pentalobe screw. The screw is designed to de-thread if people attempt to open it with non-conventional screwdrivers. Not only this, but their devices are full of tripwire-like wires that intentionally snap if the phone is tampered with. These wires are essential to the phones operation and if they break the phone is ruined.

This makes me want to fix my on phone even more. I want to prove to myself that it is possible and that phones aren’t these complex devices, not to be tampered with. If I can do it, anyone can. We just need to get over the fear.

Poster Text

Products are made to be just products. There is very little consideration into their life beyond their usage and the way they are made.

“80% of a product, service, or systems, environmental impact is determined at the design stage.” Whether that is how consumers use the product, how the product is disposed of or the way it comes down the assembly line. All factors can be considered and determined at the design stage. Sustainability and longevity should be a new cornerstone for ‘good design’. Designers should always factor in the environmental impact of their products when they are being created.

Collaborative Consumption is one of many ways this is already being done. This is where goods and services aren’t owned by a single user, instead they are temporarily accessed by members of a network and anything that is underused gets shared. This new business model incentivises designing products to last as they acquire money per units-usage instead of per units-sold. The longer a product last the more money service providers will get out of it.

Onzo Bikes, as an example, have to consider not only how the bikes are used but also things like; how do they last when they’re left outside in a storm, how do we efficiently fix them when they are faulty, how can we avoid them being vandalised? All of these considerations contribute to a longer lasting product that serves not just one user, but many.

Hello-Fresh is an example of food being consumed collaboratively. The service buys ingredients in bulk and distributes them out into each consumers box to be delivered to their door. Immediately this becomes more sustainable as there is less individualised packaging from buying in bulk and less waste produced due to consumers getting no more than the recipe requires. Hello-Fresh then goes the extra mile by making as much of its packaging components as recyclable as possible and anything that can’t be recycled gets collected the following week to be reused.

Friday class

I put my poster up on the wall and had a few chats with classmates. This helped further refine my thoughts and clarified that what was on my poster wasn’t exactly what was in my head. It’s not clear enough that my intentions are about designing for a new business model. An interesting idea that was tossed around was an example of a watch subscription that allowed users to pay a weekly/monthly/annually payment and received a watch for the time they were paying. This allowed them to swap and change watches for different occasions.

Lee Jensen

I find that talking to Lee is always very helpful for me as he is able to help refine my ideas into something useable. In this circumstance he pushed my project and suggested a few things I look into.

Further distillation of my concept so far

• Most products are built to expire (planned obsolescence). This is taken so far at times, that companies trick us into thinking our working products are shit before they have even expired (perceived obsolescence).
• Unwanted products, either take up space in our homes, end up in landfills, or return to the manufacturers (so they can build more products).
• Products need to be designed for longevity. Designed to endure any circumstance. A consumer that purchases products that last longer won’t need to consume as many products. The less products someone consumes the less products that end up in landfills.
• A service that relies on a pay-per-use business model, incentivises better design of their products. A product that lasts longer has potential to make more money in its longer lifetime than a product that expires quickly. (Reduces units created for companies, results in better products for consumers). This is opposed to the per-units-sold business model.