Design in the Everyday Context
By: Zoë Urand
Tags: Interaction Design, Design

Design in the Everyday Context

The theme for this past week of our Design Methodology Seminar was Design in the Everyday Context. As this area of design draws knowledge from a myriad of academic disciplines, we had readings from a Genevieve Bell, cultural anthropologist, Annemarie Mol, ethnographer and philosopher, and John M. Carroll, social-cognitive scientist — just to name a few. Although all readings helped to further my understanding of interaction design, specifically how it is applied in an everyday context, I found myself drawn to two papers in particular.

The first being “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology” (2000) by Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol. De Laet and Mol set out to explore what attracts them to the Zimbabwe Bush Pump, which turns out to be its fluidity (p. 225). Used as a metaphor to describe the nature of the Bush pump, fluidity is defined in this context by De Laet and Mol as “an object that isn’t too rigorously bounded, that doesn’t impose itself but tries to serve, that is adaptable, flexible and responsive” (p. 226). The Bush Pump is produced and designed in Zimbabwe, with local materials (p. 236). It provides fresh, clean drinking water for communities, and as a result it is not just a water pump but a sanitation device keeping people healthy (p. 231), which in turn helps build up a nation (p. 235). Of course the Bush Pump is not free of imperfection, but its many identities (i.e. nation builder, health promoter) are what has allowed it to be successful (p. 252).

Figure 1 Young girls using Zimbabwe Bush Pump; first model designed by Tommy Murgatroyd in 1933

Looking at the Zimbabwe Bush Pump has me considering the fluidity of my designs. As an interaction designer who is concerned with the human experience, I would like to begin thinking about how my designs can incorporate some the Bush Pump’s qualities, such as adaptability and/or responsiveness.

The second paper that captured my interest was “Ritual Machines I & II: Making Technology at Home” (2016) by David S. Kirk, David Chatting, Paulina Yurman, and Jo-Anne Bichard. Before reading about the Ritual Machines I & II, I had never heard the terms bespoke design and phatic technologies. Dating back to 1853, bespoke design is a past participle of the word bespeak, meaning something made specifically for an individual. At the time bespoke designs referred mainly tailored suits. Today, bespoke designs are everywhere (“Bespoke This, Bespoke That. Enough Already,” 2016). The second term, phatic technologies, are defined by Kirk et al. as, “the devices that serve to express the non-verbal emphatic, emotive and paralinguistic elements of communication” (p. 2475).

Figure 2 Anticipation of Time Together, Kirk et al. (2016)

The Ritual Machines I and II are examples of bespoke, phatic technologies from Kirk et al.. They consider two families, Craig and Holly in Edinburgh, and Hywel and Jesper in London, and how to better connect each mobile worker with his/her family. For Craig and Holly the Ritual Machine I was composed of a wine dispenser and bottle opener connected wirelessly to the Internet, focusing on their “simple shared pleasure of having a drink together at the end of the day” (Kirk et al., p. 2479). Less ritualistic than the first, the Ritual Machine II was a countdown timer, representing the passing of time in “anticipation of a future event” (Kirk et al., p. 2477–2478).

Figure 3 Interactions of Drinking Together Whilst Apart, Kirk et al. (2016)

These case studies demonstrate the complexity of translating the character and values of each family into an appropriate bespoke, phatic technology. There may be unforeseen implications or interpretations, or perhaps the environment in which the technology is originally situated, changes. Regardless I find myself drawn to this type of design and would like to explore other case studies. Perhaps I simply find phatic technologies to be a breath of fresh air in 2019. We do not only communicate verbally, so why is this largely reflected in our technologies? My interest in phatic technologies may also stem from personal experience. The distance between myself and my family is roughly 8,300km, and sometimes verbal communication is not enough.

Sources