Critiquing Existing Products

Not "is it any good"

Pick up anything near you and ask whether it is well designed. You will get an opinion, and an opinion is worth nothing in this subject. The examiner cannot mark whether you liked it. ⚠️ SO CHANGE THE QUESTION, AND THE WHOLE TOPIC OPENS UP. ⭐⭐ DO NOT ASK WHETHER IT IS GOOD. ASK WHO IT WAS GOOD FOR. Because every object you have ever held was optimised for somebody. Somebody's requirement won, and it left marks all over the thing. ⚠️ AND IT WAS VERY OFTEN NOT THE PERSON HOLDING IT. Think about who actually had a say. THE PERSON WHO USES IT wants it to work, to keep working, and to be comfortable while it does. THE PERSON WHO BUYS IT may be somebody else entirely: a parent, a school, an employer, a hospital. They want it cheap, or they want it to look right, and they will not be the one living with it. THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE AND SELL IT want it to suit the machines they already own, to survive being stacked in a lorry, and to stand out on a shelf next to five others. ⭐ THOSE REQUIREMENTS COMPETE, AND THE OBJECT IS THE RECORD OF WHO WON. A handle that is the wrong shape but the right price. A casing glued shut because gluing is faster than screwing. A colour nobody asked for that photographs well. ⚠️ NONE OF THOSE IS A MISTAKE. EACH ONE IS SOMEBODY'S REQUIREMENT BEATING SOMEBODY ELSE'S. And there is a fourth group, who never had a say at all. The people who will breathe the fumes from making it, or live beside where it is thrown away. ⭐ THOSE ARE REAL COSTS OF THE DESIGN, AND THEY LAND ON PEOPLE WHO NEVER BOUGHT IT. ⚠️ THIS IS ALSO WHY YOUR SPECIFICATION NAMES NO DESIGNERS AND NO PRODUCTS. It is not an oversight and it is not you being let off. ⭐ YOU ARE NOT BEING EXAMINED ON WHETHER YOU RECOGNISE A FAMOUS CHAIR. YOU ARE BEING EXAMINED ON WHETHER YOU CAN TAKE ANY OBJECT APART AND SAY WHY IT IS THE WAY IT IS. Which means the procedure has to travel, and so does the question: whose requirement won here, and who is paying for it?

Three sets of requirements, one object

Everyone with a say in what a product becomes, and the marks each of them leaves on it. The fourth group, who had no say, is the subject of a later step.

Tap what this way of looking actually claims

Tap the TWO statements that follow from asking who a product was optimised for.

• Calling a product badly designed is incomplete until you say who it was bad for
• The way a product is joined together is evidence about the factory that made it, not just a construction detail
• Features that inconvenience the user are usually mistakes the designer failed to notice
• Style and trend are matters of taste and so cannot be analysed in an exam answer

The one nobody using it wanted

A cheap kettle has a lid that must be pressed hard and held while pouring in water. Every user finds it annoying. It has been made that way for years. What does the critique question suggest?

• That somebody else's requirement won: the lid is probably one moulded part with no hinge or spring to fit, which makes it cheaper and faster to assemble
• That the designer did not test it with real users
• That it must be a safety feature, since awkward things usually are
• That customers must prefer the appearance of a lid without a hinge

The vocabulary a critique needs

Five terms, each defined by what it is. Whose requirement each one usually serves is the work of the steps that follow.

Match each feature to whose requirement won

Two that follow from asking who it was for

Select the TWO statements that follow from treating a product as a record of competing requirements.

• Where the buyer and the user are different people, features that serve the buyer can beat features that serve the user
• Some of a product's real costs are carried by people who neither made, bought nor used it
• Since critique involves judgement, a well-argued opinion about whether a product is nice is what is being marked
• Branding and styling are added after the design is finished, so they are not part of a product critique

Running a critique when you are handed anything

You have already met the habit that most of this specification rests on: a context is not the same thing as a user, and a product can suit its user perfectly and still fail the place it has to work in. ⚠️ THAT DOES NOT CHANGE HERE. WHAT CHANGES IS THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. ⭐ THERE YOU WERE WORKING FORWARDS FROM A SITUATION TO A DESIGN. HERE YOU ARE WORKING BACKWARDS FROM A FINISHED OBJECT TO THE DECISIONS INSIDE IT. Five questions, in this order, and they work on anything you are handed. WHAT IS IT FOR, AND WHO ACTUALLY USES IT? Be specific about the body and the situation, not the market. WHO PAID FOR IT? ⚠️ IF THAT IS A DIFFERENT PERSON, YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND THE MOST LIKELY SOURCE OF EVERY COMPROMISE IN THE THING. WHAT DOES THE MAKING TELL YOU? Look at how it is joined, how many parts it has, whether it could be opened, what has been moulded in one piece. These are not construction details. They are evidence about a factory. WHAT IS IT PROMISING, AND TO WHOM? Colour, finish, proportion and where the maker's mark sits are all aimed at somebody, usually before the thing is ever used. AND WHO PAYS THE COSTS THAT DO NOT APPEAR ON THE PRICE? The people who made it, the people near where it is disposed of, the person who cannot repair it. ⚠️ THREE HABITS THAT COST MARKS ON THIS TOPIC. ⚠️ THE FIRST IS DESCRIBING INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING. "It is made of moulded plastic" is an observation. "It is moulded in one piece, which suits the tooling and removes a joint the user might have opened" is a critique. ⚠️ THE SECOND IS CALLING A DELIBERATE COMPROMISE A MISTAKE. If something irritating has survived for years, it is doing a job for somebody, and finding out whom is the answer. ⚠️ AND THE THIRD IS INVENTING EVIDENCE. ⭐ DO NOT REACH FOR A PRICE, A MARKET SHARE, A MATERIAL COST OR A COMPANY'S ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIM UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN OF IT. What you can see in the object is enough, and it is what you are being asked about.

Taking one cheap object apart

Here is an object you can picture without being told a brand: a low-priced electric kettle, the sort bought for a rented flat or a staff room. Run the five questions on it. WHO USES IT? Anybody, including people with weak grip, poor sight, or both, filling it one-handed at a tap while holding something else. ⭐ THAT IS THE REAL BODY IT HAS TO SUIT, AND IT IS NOT THE BODY IT WAS TESTED ON. WHO PAID FOR IT? Very often a landlord or an employer, who will never boil water in it. ⚠️ AND THERE IS THE HINGE THE WHOLE CRITIQUE TURNS ON. The person choosing wanted a low price and something that looked acceptable in a photograph. Comfort in the hand cost them nothing to give up, because the cost lands on somebody else. WHAT DOES THE MAKING TELL YOU? The body is moulded in very few parts, and the handle is part of the body rather than fitted separately, which removes a joint, a fixing and a step on the line. The base is snapped rather than screwed, so it cannot be opened without breaking it. ⭐ AND THAT IS THE ANSWER TO WHY A FAILED SWITCH ENDS THE OBJECT: NOT BECAUSE THE SWITCH IS UNUSUALLY BAD, BUT BECAUSE NOBODY IS MEANT TO GET TO IT. The saving is a few seconds of assembly, multiplied by an enormous number of units. Look at what the shape does to a person. A handle moulded in line with the body is cheap and is at the wrong angle for a full pour, so the wrist takes the weight at exactly the moment the kettle is heaviest and the water is hot. ⚠️ A SEPARATE HANDLE SET AT AN ANGLE WOULD FIX IT, AND WOULD COST MORE, AND WOULD BE CHOSEN BY SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT THE ONE POURING. WHAT IS IT PROMISING? A finish that looks like metal, a curve borrowed from far more expensive kettles, and a maker's mark facing into the room. All of it is aimed at the moment of buying rather than the years of using. AND WHO PAYS WHAT IS NOT ON THE PRICE? A body that cannot be opened is a body that cannot be repaired, so a failure of one small part discards the whole thing, including its metal. Somebody near where it is discarded lives with that, and nobody in the shop counted it. ⭐ NOTICE THAT NOTHING IN THIS CRITIQUE REQUIRED KNOWING THE MANUFACTURER, THE PRICE OR THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. EVERY CLAIM CAME FROM LOOKING AT THE OBJECT AND ASKING WHO EACH DECISION SERVED.

Order how to take a product apart

Put the five critique questions into the order that makes each one easier to answer, then finish with the judgement they support.

• Establish what it is for and who physically uses it
• Work out who paid for it, and whether that is the same person
• Read the making: parts, joints, mouldings, whether it can be opened
• Read what it promises: finish, colour, proportion, where the maker's mark sits
• Identify the costs carried by people outside the transaction
• Judge it, saying explicitly who it serves well and who it serves badly

Build the sentence that turns looking into critique

This is the sentence an examiner is waiting for. Assemble it.

The product critique run

Five questions on reading an object backwards to the decisions inside it. Three lives.

Complete the product critique facts

The study of how well a product fits the person using it is _____. The use of body measurement data in designing products is _____. Designing a product so that it will need replacing sooner than it otherwise would is _____. How easily a person can do what they intend using a product is its _____.

Three critiques to sharpen

Three student critiques. In each case the mark is in the reasoning, not the verdict.

• A critique reads: "The product is made from injection-moulded polypropylene, which is cheap and light." Everything in it is accurate. Why does it score poorly?
• A student writes that a well-known product's awkward handle is "clearly a design mistake that should have been caught in testing". The product has sold in that form for many years. How would you improve it?
• Asked about a product's environmental impact, an answer says the company should use more recycled material and be more sustainable. What needs changing?

Critique something you can actually hold

Choose a product you own or use often. Do not choose a famous one. Critique it by working backwards from the object to the decisions inside it.

• Say what it is for and who physically uses it, describing a real body and a real situation rather than a market
• Say who paid for it, and whether that is the same person who uses it
• Explain one thing about how it is made, and say whose requirement that serves
• Explain one thing about how it looks or what it promises, and say who that is aimed at
• Identify one cost of the product that is carried by somebody outside the transaction
• Finish with a judgement that says explicitly who this product serves well and who it serves badly, and avoid any figure you are not certain of