|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:actually has there been a smart bin yet? because it's easy to imagine the pitch https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brunosmartcan/trash-can-vacuum-bruno-the-worlds-first-smartcan
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:actually has there been a smart bin yet? because it's easy to imagine the pitch
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
dumpstr no, wait, dumpstero Soricidus fucked around with this message at 01:04 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:dumpstr sorry this already exists its called yahoo
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brunosmartcan/trash-can-vacuum-bruno-the-worlds-first-smartcan lol it uses non-standard bag refills
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
i thought trash compactors were the smart trash cans
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
hifi posted:i thought trash compactors were the smart trash cans weren't those awful? the rich ppl I knew growing up seemed to hate theirs and I don't know anyone now who has one
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Sniep posted:weren't those awful? the rich ppl I knew growing up seemed to hate theirs and I don't know anyone now who has one i have no clue. i've never seen one in my life
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
hifi posted:i have no clue. i've never seen one in my life yeah talking about early 90s McMansion style poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
looking on google there's forum posts from old people asking where they went and everyone else asking why someone would want one. and of course there's some psycho on youtube with like a collection of them smashing diapers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VaDeM0_b0w
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
my brother's house has one but as far as they know it's never been used, and it was installed at least a decade before they bought the house
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
they only have 2 tons of force? that's not even one tesla
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Sniep posted:weren't those awful? the rich ppl I knew growing up seemed to hate theirs and I don't know anyone now who has one you have to buy special bags, and taking your trash out less often is a terrible mis-feature who wants to pay money to have a garbage can that smells 10x worse than usual?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:a garbage can that smells 10x worse than usual mlyp
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brunosmartcan/trash-can-vacuum-bruno-the-worlds-first-smartcan was bruno the mute giant muppet that carried around oscar the grouch in a garbage can?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Sniep posted:weren't those awful? the rich ppl I knew growing up seemed to hate theirs and I don't know anyone now who has one when my parents built their house, those were in style at the time. I think we used it for like one week. I mean it's still there, but it's been there for 25 years now, and was used for maybe one week of that. it was stupid. There were also other things like "no organic matter" "no this and that" solely because of the "that poo poo rots in there and ranks up the drat place" so in the end you had to have a normal trash can as well.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
oh boy a garbage can i only have to empty quarterly with super-dense bags that weigh a loving ton and are full of actively rotting months-old crap sign me up yo, i want a part of my house smelling like an apartment's garbage roomdoctorfrog posted:was bruno the mute giant muppet that carried around oscar the grouch in a garbage can? yup
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:was bruno the mute giant muppet that carried around oscar the grouch in a garbage can? so pretty much http://www.clickhole.com/video/amazing-watch-how-one-startup-changing-way-we-get--5612
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
hifi posted:and of course there's some psycho on youtube with like a collection of them smashing diapers
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Nice to see Schmorky doing well 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
wanted to be at a real keyboard when i responded, thanks for the info dump!Sagebrush posted:splitting your prototypes into "looks like" and "works like" variants is totally normal and expected in the design process Sagebrush posted:when you bring people in for user testing, you say "ok, this is what it's going to look like, what do you think" and get their feedback, then "alright, now sit on this mechanical prototype and tell us how it feels." i'm simplifying that a bit, even -- sometimes you'll have pure mechanical prototypes that cannot be used without instruction (your brick example), and sometimes you'll have UX/ergonomics/affordance prototypes where you give it to the user and see what they do -- even the way they initially grasp some unfamiliar object when picking it up can give you tons of information -- and sometimes you'll have pure aesthetic models where you just ask people if it looks cool or swooshy or friendly or if they like the color or w/e. their first ID model they put in front of folks and the users just didn't get it, had the thing on it's side, rolling it back and forth, etc. like the designers thought it'd be 'natural' to put it one way, users did everything but. their next rev was this triangular thing with a fat base, much higher chance of the user thinking "up" was the same way as the deisgner Sagebrush posted:the process continues in a loop like that, getting closer and closer to the "real thing", until you either decide that the design's perfect (only very rare and elite design studios have that privilege) or you run out of time or money and have to ship (everyone else). they COULD be pre-heating the metal outlet, so you're carrying around a block of super secret alloy at 45C in your pocket all day, but that invites more challenges than it solves Sagebrush posted:oh lol and with all that sperging i didn't even address this the phrase that i never really got a working definition for as a lowly firmware guy was "design language," and by the end i was pretty sure the craftier ME's couldn't articulate one if they saw it
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
i'd define a "design language" as the collection of characteristic forms, colors, textures, patterns, proportions, and other visual elements that make up the external appearance of a product. a blunt way of putting it is -- it's why a porsche looks like a porsche and a lamborghini looks like a lamborghini. they're both similar products manufactured in similar ways and they have a similar purpose, but they look totally different. on the superficial level, the porsche uses a lot of rounded forms that blend smoothly into each other, but the lamborghini uses flatter surfaces that merge with sharper edges (chines). notice the rear fenders, the "hips" of the car -- on the porsche they're round and drape smoothly over the wheels. the lamborghini has a sharp crease that runs right along the center of that area and traces the edge of the car under the door.   now look at the air intakes in the front bumper. the edges of the hole in the porsche's are rounded, filleted off, and the whole thing forms one continuous smooth opening (or would if not for the license plate). the lamborghini uses sharp, angular forms for those openings, mirroring the sharp, angular language in the rest of the car. you'll notice this general theme repeated everywhere: the mirrors, the headlights, the hood seam, even the door handles. each car has a "language" of specific forms, selected from the infinite field of geometric possibilities, and they reuse those forms over and over again. it's what ties the design together and makes it look cohesive. in contrast, a lot of riced-out modded "custom" cars just kind of use a grab bag of different languages, whatever the designers chose for each additional component, and they sometimes look like janky disjointed garbage. obviously there's tons of this stuff going on -- much more than just the overall geometric forms like i've mentioned here. design language also includes color, pattern, macrotexture and microtexture (macrotexture = like a grille, microtexture = like knurling), logos, subassemblies (all cadillacs use the same headlight), yada yada yada. furthermore, there's a whole thing to get into about the balance between aesthetic-driven language and function-driven language. like if you want to make a knife handle that's friendly and warm for the kitchen, maybe you make it deliberately recall a leaf or a water drop or something, with organic forms and subtle colors. but if you're making a power tool, the shape of the handle may be primarily dictated by functionality -- grips in these particular areas, bright colors so that it's easily visible, blunt rounded corners so it can take an impact, mechanical fasteners so that it's disassemblable for maintenance. all of those requirements define a particular language of their own, which you can then deliberately apply in other areas of the product, or spread across a product line, or even apply to a totally different product (like make a bbq spatula FOR REAL MEN that recalls all the expected language of an impact driver.) on and on. i can sperg about this forever. but hopefully that gives you a decent idea of the term 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
the thing about design is that there's a whole layer of discussions and decisions that aren't about what you see, but they inform the decisions into any cohesive end product whether it's industrial or entertainment or whatever. anything that looks like a loving mess is probably at least partially because they didn't care to get a vocabulary going that informed the rest of their decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
thanks, making it concrete with the two examples helped. as little as i could pick apart the two cars, its easier to take a common element and pull out the styling/design and this bit Maluco Marinero posted:anything that looks like a loving mess is probably at least partially because they didn't care to get a vocabulary going that informed the rest of their decisions. idk it still feels like the wrong base for the analogy. like is a hard-edged feature on a porsche mirror "outside" the language? "inexpressible"? if i'm designing OXO grip #56, what kinds of challenges could a designer hit that would require... 'modifying' the design language? 'extending'? 'spoonerizing'?? like it'll be black rubber with fillets somewhere, but is 'symmetry' part of it where the new tool needs to break that?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
putting the lamborghini mirror on the porsche would be outside the porsche's design language, yeah. like see the hard line through the center of the lambo mirror? there's no creases of that type (meaning two surfaces intersecting at that angle with that fillet radius) anywhere on the porsche. it would stand out as something different. one of the basic concepts in creating a design language is that you need to heavily restrict your field. there are infinite possible forms you could use in your design, but you need to pick a limited number of those and stick to them. repeating the same elements over and over makes things feel consistent and complete. this is a really complex thing to teach -- like when i say "repeating an element" i don't mean just making the headlight outline shaped exactly like the mirror which is shaped exactly like the air vents or w/e. you can distort the shapes in certain ways while maintaining their character, like by keeping track of the radius of curvature of a form and its inflection points and maintaining those same general forms in other parts of the design. if you try to analyze it like this, it gets really deep really fast, but i guess a good analogy would be like fonts in a printed document. a nicely designed document should limit its use of different fonts. i personally aim to use no more than two typefaces with two variants each (bold, italic, larger/smaller, etc). when people make a document with five different typefaces and each one has a bold and italic variant and three different sizes, it looks like disjointed garbage. so anyway this sort of consideration to subtleties of form is what makes a well-designed object. edge fillets in particular are something i always look at, and it's really obvious when something was designed by a designer vs. hacked out by an engineer. trivial example:   in the first case you just click "fillet all", pick a radius, and call it a day. all of the fillets collide at every corner and you get this weird little ball-shaped surface that catches highlights weird and adds tension to the corner points. in the second case, i've used a larger fillet on some edges and rolled a smaller fillet around the others. this creates two distinct surfaces with optical continuity. it feels better. serves the same purpose as fillet-all but this way is just better. JawnV6 posted:if i'm designing OXO grip #56, what kinds of challenges could a designer hit that would require... 'modifying' the design language? 'extending'? 'spoonerizing'?? like it'll be black rubber with fillets somewhere, but is 'symmetry' part of it where the new tool needs to break that? any kind of functional requirements might change the form in a way that requires some alteration to the language. maybe it's a grip for a new kind of tool that has to be held in a different way (potato masher or smth i dunno). so you have to move the grip points around, change the shape somewhat. ideally the designer will invent a clever way to reuse key elements that don't need to be altered. so maybe the handle shape changes and the grips move, but you can still use the OXO-style thin finned grip areas, and the same black rubber, and the shiny black hanging hole element, and the same general radii, and so on. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Yes please worship oxo in this design jerkoff talk just had one of their chinese garbage handles snap in half on me cutting the poo poo out of my wrist
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
cool story
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
having been the engineer in a room full of designers quite a few times I can appreciate the different approaches but designers are also loving stupid sometimes. I'm in this weird no mans land between the two and it's hard to occupy. I've tried to study A E S T H E T I C and design language and I wouldn't say I'm more than like a sophomore understanding of it but that's leaps and bounds ahead of most of my engineering cohort my top designer quibble is in architectural stuff they love putting greenery on roofs and elaborate gardens in spec drawings but lol if anybody's going to spend time maintaining your ambitious skyscraper roof jungle
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:putting the lamborghini mirror on the porsche would be outside the porsche's design language, yeah. like see the hard line through the center of the lambo mirror? there's no creases of that type (meaning two surfaces intersecting at that angle with that fillet radius) anywhere on the porsche. it would stand out as something different. most of my input was "no, induction charging is bad, just use pogo pins ffs" also i meant "fins" when i said "fillets" Sagebrush posted:so anyway this sort of consideration to subtleties of form is what makes a well-designed object. edge fillets in particular are something i always look at, and it's really obvious when something was designed by a designer vs. hacked out by an engineer. trivial example:  Sagebrush posted:any kind of functional requirements might change the form in a way that requires some alteration to the language. maybe it's a grip for a new kind of tool that has to be held in a different way (potato masher or smth i dunno). so you have to move the grip points around, change the shape somewhat. ideally the designer will invent a clever way to reuse key elements that don't need to be altered. so maybe the handle shape changes and the grips move, but you can still use the OXO-style thin finned grip areas, and the same black rubber, and the shiny black hanging hole element, and the same general radii, and so on. Pryor on Fire posted:Yes please worship oxo in this design jerkoff talk just had one of their chinese garbage handles snap in half on me cutting the poo poo out of my wrist
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Casual Encountess posted:having been the engineer in a room full of designers quite a few times I can appreciate the different approaches but designers are also loving stupid sometimes. :h5:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Casual Encountess posted:having been the engineer in a room full of designers quite a few times I can appreciate the different approaches but designers are also loving stupid sometimes. engineer: "no we can't make it 2mm thick, there needs to be space for the actual components" designer: "   "
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
*picture of transparent iphone mockup*
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:engineer: "no we can't make it 2mm thick, there needs to be space for the actual components" this is the first thing I thought of
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Casual Encountess posted:having been the engineer in a room full of designers quite a few times I can appreciate the different approaches but designers are also loving stupid sometimes. having been the designer in a room full of engineers for a long, long time engineers are also loving stupid sometimes, just in the opposite direction. for every designer who makes a rendering of a solar-powered fully transparent iphone or w/e, there's an engineer who tries to make everything a welded stainless steel cube because that's the optimum material, right? and if you sliced yourself on the razor sharp sheet-metal edge well you should have been more careful, that sounds like user error. and i think it looks just great, lol what do you mean it's "harsh" and "uncomfortable", what are you, a *snort* woman?? Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
like that IYG poster who stuck random pieces of skateboard grip tape all over his iphone because it was too slippery. that's the ultimate engineer's solution.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:and if you sliced yourself on the razor sharp sheet-metal edge well you should have been more careful, that sounds like user error switch sheet metal for machined aluminum and this is among things that the design team of macbook pro have actually said
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
i once worked with a designer who wanted to make a magnetic something-or-other, and specified the substrate material as aluminum. when i questioned that she said "oh it's magnetic aluminum." i blinked and stared and she was like "wait, don't they have that?" i also worked with an engineer who took my solidworks model of a kitchen product and sliced a bunch of vent holes right into the top surface. i pointed out that this ruined the look of the surface, made ingress points for liquids to spill into the device, and made it impossible to wipe the surface clean in a single pass of a sponge. he irritably replied "well if we put the vents on the side the convection won't be as good."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:like that IYG poster who stuck random pieces of skateboard grip tape all over his iphone because it was too slippery. that's the ultimate engineer's solution.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:like that IYG poster who stuck random pieces of skateboard grip tape all over his iphone because it was too slippery. that's the ultimate engineer's solution. rip literally, your pockets and pants
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
excuse me it's bathtub grip tape
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:33
|
|
