We need to accept the fact that ageing is a process that belongs to the world. Products that evolve together with people get older too. They change, get some scars and a user can be emotionally attached to it, because they went through a lot of things together.
To accept the process of ageing you also need to address the issue of perfection. We live in a world where everything needs to be perfect. If it isn’t perfect you throw it away…but why not repair it? Use it again? Don’t design for perfection, because perfection is vulnerable. One scratch makes it imperfect.
When planning a products lifespan, consider the lifespan of the materials from which the product is made. Make recyclable products in such a way the quality of the material does not degrade when being recycled. And make disposable things that will last only as long as we need them. Food packaging for example now lasts much longer than the item that is packed.
To accept the process of ageing you also need to address the issue of perfection. We live in a world where everything needs to be perfect. If it isn’t perfect you throw it away…but why not repair it? Use it again? Don’t design for perfection, because perfection is vulnerable. One scratch makes it imperfect.
When planning a products lifespan, consider the lifespan of the materials from which the product is made. Make recyclable products in such a way the quality of the material does not degrade when being recycled. And make disposable things that will last only as long as we need them. Food packaging for example now lasts much longer than the item that is packed.
Recycling is a good way of reusing materials, but only recycling without redesigning (and rethinking) isn’t enough. “The reason recycling is so popular is because it demands only easy-to-achieve, small change from producers and consumers alike and no radical shift in behaviour. They require no change in what consumers buy and allow consumption to continue unabated, but just with recycled materials, not virgin ones.” [1]
To create a shift in user behaviour a relationship with the products and producer is required. Jonathan Chapman has an interesting vision on this relationship; “Products should respond to a greater diversity of triggers than just on/off switches, volume controls, buttons, knobs and dials…It is plausible and interesting to conceptualize a range of products triggered simply by immediate environmental stimuli, such as air temperature, proximity to walls, proximity to users, local brightness, time of day/year or global positioning”.[2]
The way you use a garment/product determines the level of satisfaction. If we are able to use garments in different ways, so they satisfy different needs (read about ‘needs’ in my blog article from 10th of february 2012) in an expanding period of time, then the relationship will be developed into a long one. An interesting blog about clothes relationships is that of Hasmik Matevosyan.
But a long lifespan isn’t always the right way, ones again it is all about the purpose of the garment. For example; “those garments that are rarely washed and which are worn for years, slow rhythms of use (and related design strategies supporting both physical and emotional durability) are likely to bring most benefits. Yet for long haul, frequently washed garments, substantial resource savings are more likely to be achieved by targeting the impacts arising from the use phase. Speculatively, this might mean that designers focus on changing people’s laundering habits or introducing fast rhythms of use, where garments are disposed of before laundering.” [3]
To create a shift in user behaviour a relationship with the products and producer is required. Jonathan Chapman has an interesting vision on this relationship; “Products should respond to a greater diversity of triggers than just on/off switches, volume controls, buttons, knobs and dials…It is plausible and interesting to conceptualize a range of products triggered simply by immediate environmental stimuli, such as air temperature, proximity to walls, proximity to users, local brightness, time of day/year or global positioning”.[2]
The way you use a garment/product determines the level of satisfaction. If we are able to use garments in different ways, so they satisfy different needs (read about ‘needs’ in my blog article from 10th of february 2012) in an expanding period of time, then the relationship will be developed into a long one. An interesting blog about clothes relationships is that of Hasmik Matevosyan.
But a long lifespan isn’t always the right way, ones again it is all about the purpose of the garment. For example; “those garments that are rarely washed and which are worn for years, slow rhythms of use (and related design strategies supporting both physical and emotional durability) are likely to bring most benefits. Yet for long haul, frequently washed garments, substantial resource savings are more likely to be achieved by targeting the impacts arising from the use phase. Speculatively, this might mean that designers focus on changing people’s laundering habits or introducing fast rhythms of use, where garments are disposed of before laundering.” [3]
[1] Kate Fletcher, Sustainable fashion & textiles design journeys, 2008, p107
[2] Jonathan Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design, 2005, p146
[1] Kate Fletcher, Sustainable fashion & textiles design journeys, 2008, p171
[2] Jonathan Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design, 2005, p146
[1] Kate Fletcher, Sustainable fashion & textiles design journeys, 2008, p171
RSS Feed
