[22/11/2012]
(Some things become Classic for a reason)
Who?
The integrate chair is designed for employees working in a general office space situation where they will not have their own chair adjusted to their preferences. Given its high degree of adjustability, the integrate could be used by all workers within the hub. The app-based interaction ensures that older users with limited dexterity will be able to adjust the chair as easily as their young colleagues.
What?
The integrate is an office chair that uses an app to allow users to adjust almost every aspect of the chair. With their preferences saved on their mobile device, those preferences can then be communicated to any integrate chair. Not only can the user adjust the overall height, armrest position, they can also adjust the curvature of both the chair’s spine and backrest. The adjustability of key points on the spine gives the user greater back support and helps them to maintain better posture. The 3 pairs of “arms” on the backrest allow users to create a bespoke curvature to maximise comfort. Additionally, the ball at the base of the chair gives users a far larger range of motion while ensuring that the back remains supported.
Where?
As previously stated, the chair is designed for users working in a “hub” environment. In this sort of scenario, everyone will be sharing spaces/resources meaning that no one will have a chair that they, and they alone, use.
When?
With work extending across time zones there is the possibility that the hubs will be open 24/7 meaning that any one chair could be in use for over 12 hours a day. Although the chair could be used by over a dozen people on any given day, there is a good chance that it will be occupied by a single user for a prolonged period of time.
Why?
With office workers no longer having their own chair, they will need chairs that can adapt to their preferences with the minimal amount of effort. The integrate uses the increasingly ubiquitous nature of technology to achieve this. The automatic nature of the adjustment is also of great benefit to the ageing workforce who may be unable to fully customise the chair by traditional means. The physical wellbeing of users across all age groups is also key and the adjustable spine and backrest go some way to ensuring this. While the spine aids posture and provides increased support, the ball at the base allows users a wide range of motion. Given that current predictions estimate that by 2030 nearly half of the UK population will be classed as obese, a chair that allows its users to move freely could have a beneficial effect on their overall health.
What is this? A chair for ANTS! It needs to be at least... 3 times bigger than this!"
[24/11/2012]
+Movie+CLIP+(2001)+HD+-+Yo.jpg) |
| Scale model of The Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Who Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too |
These are words that no man should ever have to say but I just spent my Friday night upholstering model chairs. And just to add insult to significant injury, I had to miss the Celtic game against Inverness to stay home and continue to work on my models (although in hindsight that may not have been the worst thing in the world).
Although their overall quality belies the amount of time i spent on them, I did find the exercise useful. It's difficult on paper (and sometimes even on CAD) to get an idea of what a design would actually look like in the real world. It's so much easier to get feedback from people if you can show them physical models of your concept instead of showing them a series of sketches. And if you have any moving parts (like the ball at the base of the chair) people will get infinitely more information from something they can play around with than they would from anything you could show them in 2-dimensions.
Model 1 This model shows the chair with a mesh backrest and 6 configurable pads on the back rest giving it a customisable curvature. The 3 gold pin heads represent the points along the spine that can also be customised to a user's preferences.
The back of the chair features 3 pairs of diagonal lines and a straight spine giving the impression of stability. The base of the chair is a standard 4 wheel configuration with cylinders to control the overall height. The main criticism i have of this model is that it looks like an office chair. There is nothing particularly futuristic about the look of this chair and probably wouldn't look out of place in an office today.
This model shows the same chair with the "node" inspired base. One of the first things i noticed about this model is that the chair seems to have an unfortunate toilet aesthetic. I know that the black seat cushion and white plasticine base isn't helping but I'm still unconvinced about the aesthetic appeal of this concept.
Next up is the cylindrical cone base. The main criticism is that the chair doesn't look stable and, even with a wider base, i don't think it would inspire confidence.
Now we have the "fan" back chair in both the classic 4 wheel and node configurations. Although i really like the aesthetic of this model, I'm really struggling to see how it would work. I think i would definitely have to lose the adjustable spine and i just can't imagine how you would get the back panels to curve - especially when being controlled via an app.
It feel like I'm trying to get function to follow form and, inevitably, struggling to make it work.
Conclusion
From what I've learned from these models I'm definitely leaning towards Model 1. I really like the look of Model 4 but I think its too late in the day to try and figure out how it would work. With the presentation and hand-in just over a week away, I really need to focus now on my final concept and refining it as best i can in the time that remains.
Final Presentaion
[06/12/2012]
After an intense 12 weeks, Monday saw us present our concepts for a chair to be used by the office workers of 2035. In attendance were our fellow students, Stuart Bailey and Nick & Craig from Steelcase.
The day got off to a good start when my full-scale model chair survived the danger-fraught journey from the studio to the seminar room. Given that I would have to leave early due to work commitments, I knew in advance that I would be going first. This can often be the most nerve-wracking slot but, in hindsight, I'm glad it was assigned to me. It meant that after I finished I could sit back and listen to the other presentations without worrying about what I was going to say.
Overall I felt my presentation went as well as it could have. I delivered it better than I had in any of my practice runs and thought the content allowed me to present the chair, the context and the interaction in a clear and concise manner. The questions I was asked afterwards by Craig and Nick were all completely valid and I hope I was able to answer them sufficiently. The question Nick raised about adjustability for users with a wider frame was especially pertinent. Having modelled the ball full-scale and having seen the problems inherent within the idea, I am beginning to feel that it is not as valuable a feature as I had previously though it would be. Given the projected rise in obesity, an adjustable seat may prove to be of greater value than the ball, although I would have to find another way to allow users the freedom of movement that the ball would have afforded them.
After an intense 12 weeks, Monday saw us present our concepts for a chair to be used by the office workers of 2035. In attendance were our fellow students, Stuart Bailey and Nick & Craig from Steelcase.
The day got off to a good start when my full-scale model chair survived the danger-fraught journey from the studio to the seminar room. Given that I would have to leave early due to work commitments, I knew in advance that I would be going first. This can often be the most nerve-wracking slot but, in hindsight, I'm glad it was assigned to me. It meant that after I finished I could sit back and listen to the other presentations without worrying about what I was going to say.
Overall I felt my presentation went as well as it could have. I delivered it better than I had in any of my practice runs and thought the content allowed me to present the chair, the context and the interaction in a clear and concise manner. The questions I was asked afterwards by Craig and Nick were all completely valid and I hope I was able to answer them sufficiently. The question Nick raised about adjustability for users with a wider frame was especially pertinent. Having modelled the ball full-scale and having seen the problems inherent within the idea, I am beginning to feel that it is not as valuable a feature as I had previously though it would be. Given the projected rise in obesity, an adjustable seat may prove to be of greater value than the ball, although I would have to find another way to allow users the freedom of movement that the ball would have afforded them.
Project Review
[07/12/2012]
On reflection, I feel the project as a whole went reasonably well. I've never had to design a product for use in the future before so this obvioulsy presented its own unique challenges. I think I spent nearly half of the 12 weeks researching the future and trying to create plausible user scenarios. This left very little time to actually design a chair which meant my final concept wasn't as well developed as I would have liked. Ideally I would have been able to make a number of prototypes to explore the various mechanisms, refining the concept after each iteration. As it was, I only had time to make a presentation model with basic representations of the desired functionality.
The part of the project I struggled most with was the business side of things. Even after conducting weeks of research, I found it impossible to say with any degree of certainty how much the chair would cost, if the technology would make it unaffordable, what manufacturing processes would be used and what materials it would be made out of.
I am still undecided about entering the RSA competition to design a work space for 2030. If I were to continue the project I would be looking at the idea of an expanding/contracting seat and possibly trying to make a basic prototype of the mechanism.
On reflection, I feel the project as a whole went reasonably well. I've never had to design a product for use in the future before so this obvioulsy presented its own unique challenges. I think I spent nearly half of the 12 weeks researching the future and trying to create plausible user scenarios. This left very little time to actually design a chair which meant my final concept wasn't as well developed as I would have liked. Ideally I would have been able to make a number of prototypes to explore the various mechanisms, refining the concept after each iteration. As it was, I only had time to make a presentation model with basic representations of the desired functionality.
The part of the project I struggled most with was the business side of things. Even after conducting weeks of research, I found it impossible to say with any degree of certainty how much the chair would cost, if the technology would make it unaffordable, what manufacturing processes would be used and what materials it would be made out of.
I am still undecided about entering the RSA competition to design a work space for 2030. If I were to continue the project I would be looking at the idea of an expanding/contracting seat and possibly trying to make a basic prototype of the mechanism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)