The Everyday Things

Monday, January 14, 2019

The Vatican at Night
My boyfriend always complains if I mention him as an artist. He has a rigid distinction between artist and designer - and he chooses to be the latter one. In his humble opinion, the artwork is something multi-interpretative, and it really depends on the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, the psychological condition of the audiences also contributes to defining the art they see. On the other hand, the designer is someone who helps audiences to understand a matter with ease and hopes to help their life get easier, too. For him, good designers are those who provide beautiful yet memorable and usable things. As an impact, he is not a fan of art installations and galleries because he has trouble getting the meaning of an artwork, and he feels helpless every time he's in it. And for months, we have had good times together both outdoors and indoors, but we never visit an art exhibition together.

I got a clear picture of his stance after finishing a book by Don Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. In this book, Norman brilliantly explains how to design failures happen every time, everywhere. He invented "The Norman Door", a condition when you find bad doors which you can't identify whether you should pull or push. He also notes that if you don't understand how something works, don't blame yourself - blame the designer. I actually bought this book because my boss asked me if I am interested in being more involved in our Human-Centered Design projects, but after finishing this book, it even gets me into a bigger question that I need to answer: have I been a good designer at work?

I've been designing for conservation and environmental issue since 2011 - around 8 years already. I remember that my first masterpiece was the symbol of Greenpeace Youth, a subgroup of young activists of Greenpeace Indonesia. Back in 2012, I was actively engaged with a bunch of energetic young people who were willing to spare their busy time at college to do something for the environment. It came to my surprise that when I visited the Greenpeace office in Jakarta in 2018, a big banner of this logo was still in their big meeting room. I was proud, but then re-questioning myself if this design represents the group and is able to explain to the audience what the group fights for without the need to explain? But then I remember times when my boyfriend critiqued me when I was designing tourism and a Komodo dragon flyer for Komodo National Park; he emphasized that what matters in design is that the audiences understand. Extravagant drawings or colors might help our design to be stunning - but sometimes, it doesn't help at all.

Campuhan Ridge Walk

Back to the book, last year, I biked downhill for around 30 km from Kintamani to Ubud. My friends and I crossed over Campuhan Ridge Walk, and I realized that the walk is well-designed for pedestrians but really bad for cyclists. It consists of big rectangular stones, and they have gaps between one another. Windy weather and a cliff on the left side made the journey a bit scary, but it was bearable. I know that this walk is meant for pedestrians because the entry itself is a small bridge that is not for bikes, but with growing interest in cycling in Bali, this ridge walk would provide a good option for cyclists enjoying Bali scenery.

Take another example. When I was walking at night from the heart of Rome to Vatican City, I had to cross over a long underpass. But I didn't need to worry about anything because there was a good pedestrian walk and the lights were very bright. I didn't feel that something bad would happen to me even though I was walking alone at 9 PM. Design principles applied to everything, including how the city plans spaces and perceived safety for everyone.

The book by Don Norman is also becoming one of several reasons why I hold an application to take a Ph.D. I've met so many great people who encourage me to immediately take Ph.D. in their countries, but something happened to me recently. I have thought that maybe, being a scientist is no more my dream. I dream of being someone who is able to translate complex science to be useful in laymen's everyday guidelines. Why? Because as Don Norman writes,

"Science strives for truth. As a result, scientists are always debating, arguing, and disagreeing with one another. ... In the real, practical world, we don't need absolute truth: approximate models work just fine. ...Engineers and businesspeople are trained to solve problems. Designers are trained to discover real problems. A brilliant solution to the wrong problem can be worse than no solution at all: solve the correct problem. ...Our technologies may change, but the fundamental principles of interaction are permanent."

Yes. I think I need to continue pursuing a career in science communication or program design and management. I don't know where this path will take me, but I do really feel helping people with their everyday things is my thing. I know that perhaps I haven't been a good designer in my entire life, but I am tired of debating the right method in proving right or wrong or trying to publish in top-tier journals.

I am just tired.

I just want to make science as people's everyday things.
I want to help people to solve their real-life problems.

Sounds easy, but in practice, it already drives me crazy.
But it won't stop me from trying even harder.

You Might Also Like

0 comments

Let's give me a feedback!