I'm writing this in the jury waiting room in the San Francisco Criminal Courthouse, waiting to find out whether I'm going to be picked for jury duty. The place is incredibly full of a remarkably broad group of people, like an airport waiting lounge during a snowstorm. The 1960s clock is broken, always pointing at 8:45, and there's a sign underneath it (printed in rainbow colors) that says "Decorative Clock Only." That's one solution.
So this is the perfect time to address to all of the responses to my smart furniture manifesto. First of all, thank you to everyone who responded. I like the dialogue. Second, I restate your points below, partially to condense the length and partially as an exercise to understand what it is that you're saying so that I can respond to it appropriately. My apologies if I misrepresent your statements.
Dave says | I hear |
Furniture is not dumb, people are dumb | People aren't going to get any smarter, but furniture can and should compensate for our failings when it can. Really this applies to all technology, and I think furniture design can do better. |
People weren't designed to sit in most chairs | Current furniture is often designed for looks rather than comfort—smart furniture would allow more flexibility to achieve both |
You will pry my Aeron from my cold, dead ass | Yes, Aerons are undoubtedly comfortable and an achievement, but they're like an HR Geiger monster mechanically and I think, unnecessarily. |
The Murphy bed is a great space saver and closer to smart than most | Absolutely. It was an elegant technological solution to a problem (small apartments created by rapid urbanization in the early 20th century). It cleverly leveraged off of the metalworking expertise that was created in the late 19th century. We should have more of those today, leveraging off of the information technology expertise created in the late 20th. |
Adam's points | My responses |
Desks and chairs are part of a system, and good ones are designed to be reconfigured by the user to suit their needs, rather than some program of the designers. That's one of the reasons why integrated seating/working surfaces fail. | I completely agree that all of these things need to be part of a system, and nowadays designing technology (which furniture has always been, even when it was made of wood, wool and iron) in isolation no longer makes sense. Allowing for adaptability is a tricker question, though. Sure there should be flexibility in the design, but one of the reasons that traditional furniture had ambiguous function was that it had to. Then, again, it would be weird to have six Aerons at the dinner table or a leather club chair next to a work surface, so it's not like "traditional" furniture design is all that flexible, either. Besides, maybe smart furniture would present possibilities for more flexibility? |
Adam likes his Murphy bed and doesn't see why it should be quaint. | I'm not saying it should be quaint, just that it is. It's of a class of furniture, like wash basins and hat racks, that are no longer nearly as popular because of how our society functions. Modern McMansions are build under different social considerations than when your house was built, so they don't have drawing rooms or root cellars, but they do have media rooms. The Murphy bed is a reminder of that time, so it comes off as quaint. |
Dumb furniture is easier to maintain and doesn't depend on the electrical grid to work. |
I agree that dumb furniture is easier to maintain, but I'm not
sure how much that plays into people's considerations anymore, so
I'm not sure how much it matters to my point that furniture needs
to become smarter. With the exception of people who seek out
older furniture (which is a sizable chunk of the population, but
probably not the majority), its function in society is as dictated
by fashion as anything else. That makes it as frequently
disposed-of as everything else. I too like furniture that lasts
(in fact most of my furniture is pre-Modern antique), but my
values are clearly not those of the majority of Ikea visitors.
And so many things aren't going to work when the grid goes out that I'm not too worried that maybe my smart table won't work as advertised. Granted, key devices should still more-or-less function even without juice, but that's part of good design. |
I read the Galen Cranz book and this is where the concept that people were designed, through milliions of years of evolution, to run and squat, but not to sit in chairs. That most chairs were bad for your back and body in general. Everything I know about ergonomics talks about not sitting continuosly in a chair...that you should get up and walk around and stretch, etc. If smart furniture found a way to rearrange itself such that...let's say...my beloved Aeron could morph into an excercise machine with low impact (and low cardio - no sweating) but strength and flexibility mini-workouts, that would help to keep people more fit and less prone to back problems. That my bed, upon sensing that I got in it could warm up a bit to take the chill off then cool down as i got warm. That furniture would 'know' to get out of the way of party attendees or folks with bad vision. That a couch could sense when to be cushier. Dining room tables with built in warmers to keep food warm.
Posted by: Dave Hoffer at October 8, 2003 08:13 AMMike's response to my original point:
"The connection is that furniture, as it's currently designed, has a poor information processing model."
To me this is like complaining that bananas as currently designed have poor information processing models. Where does this need to add an information model to furniture come from in the first place? What is the specific problem with furniture that only the application of an information model can solve?
Posted by: andrew at October 8, 2003 12:20 PMI think that bananas actually have decent information processing, but it could be better. The role they play in people's lives, the purpose they have to the people who buy them, is to provide nourishment and enjoyment (and when worn in a headdress, decoration, but that's a pretty rare use). Their way to display information about themselves is skin color. Among fruit, it's one of the best, but if they were able to communicate their freshness in a more precise way--like a countdown to freshness followed by one to total mushiness--that would make it easier to enjoy them at their peak.
Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of control over bananas, but we do over manufactured products, which can use information that supports their intended use, making them easier and "better" at what they do. And that's my point: information processing doesn't solve a specific problem, but it opens the door to making a product do what it's supposed to do better. Furniture currently has none, and I think it should.
[OK, that HAS to be the most riduculous post I've done in a while. I mean, I stand behind the whole banana thing, but--thank you--you've made me make one of the most absurd analogies I've made in a long time...days at least. ;-) ]
Posted by: mike at October 8, 2003 05:32 PMpsichologically speaking...
- can smart furniture be a little too intrusive? i mean, one piece can be amusing, but your whole house/office/favourite-park-benchs, all smart, well... could be annoying, not to say invasive, don't you think?
- since i don't expect anything from my chair, but to stand my weight and make my living room a little more MY living room, i am happy with it. but if you give me smart chairs, with behaviours a piece, then i would expect them to do something else, which could lead into dissapoinment (priorly nonexistent) let me call it "the remote control syndrome". (i want my remote control to actually remotely "control" everything!)
- alan key pointed out some time ago (once upon a time...) that public toilettes know when you leave or arrive, but your own computer doesn't. is my computer a piece of furniture? does it apply to the "smartization process"?
(corollary: we cannot do smart computers... and they're already packed with technology! can we expect to be better with furniture?)
- in six months (not to say half an hour) will my smart chair become a stupid chair since i saw another chair that does ten times more? (ergo: have you thought about learning furniture? scalability? costs? my neighbours buying a smarter chair?)
- what about dumb people? won't they suffer from having furniture smarter than they are? (sorry, couldn't resist...)
Posted by: pollux at November 3, 2003 12:33 PMThat furniture would 'know' to get out of the way of party attendees or folks with bad vision. That a couch could sense when to be cushier. Dining room tables with built in warmers to keep food warm.