Sunday, October 31, 2010

What Main St. Can Learn From the Mall

1. Gibbs considers a number of different design concepts when evaluating shopping centers. First, he examines the details in the decor and structure of a main street area. There is a fine line between tasteful decor and distracting shoppers from doing actual shopping - if they spend too much time looking at the setup of a location, they will breeze straight past storefronts. What colors and thematic elements do designers apply to the design of a main street? Attention is paid to the outdoor/patio furniture, the plants, the topiaries, the lanterns, and even the materials used to make the sidewalks. He also focuses on the organization of certain areas: for example, the difficulty of navigating a courtyard which might cause shoppers not to bother with the location at all. Cleanliness and organization not only makes it easier to shop, but also gives people reassurance that the location is safe and filth-free.

Next, he evaluates the basics of shopping logistics. Like Underhill, Gibbs notes how shoppers always turn to the right: for Underhill, upon entering a store, and for Gibbs, whilst driving in certain direction (people drive on the right side of the road, and are very unlikely to turn left to go shopping on a whim).
The parking lot of a shopping centre should be appealing: like making the customers feel as though they have arrived at a special place, somewhere new and unique. Storefronts also need to be attractive to call customers in, as well as showcasing the products the store sells.
Clothing stores should never be located next to restaurants, Gibbs says; and the direction in which a clothing store or restaurant faces is very important to a good experience both for the owners/workers of the store and the customers.
The products sold at a store can easily be made more attractive by helping the customer visualize the lifestyle that surrounds those products in practical use; like a pricey stationery store displaying its wares in a sophisticated office-like way. Likewise, different shapes and spaces can imply different meanings and standards of products and the people who sell them. Above all, it should be obvious from the outside what a store is selling.

2. While I understand and see the parallels between the ideas of Main Street and shopping malls, I feel the two should remain distinct and separate. What Gibbs points out early in the article is how shopping malls are becoming less of a popular, successful trend; in this case, it would be any business's main focus to move in a different direction. Main streets have the advantage of decorating, landscaping, and architectural freedoms that shopping malls won't necessarily have; and the developing trend toward more metropolitan methods of shopping just means that perhaps malls are passe, and outdoor shopping is a more enjoyable experience now.

3. I think the architecture and maintenance of buildings are extremely important in evaluating a main street. The buildings and store fronts must be kept clean and well-designed through time. Similarly, the outdoor decor and arrangement of benches, tables, plants, fountains and displays, etc. needs to be well thought out and convenient for traffic. The location should be good and encourage shoppers to feel safe. Likewise, the article mentions traffic and how traffic flow should be good (whether in cars or on foot). The locations of stores and restaurants should be logical directionally, especially for restaurants and stores whose clothing products need to be protected from the sun.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Wikipedia Article

The Wikipedia article I have written to improve writing skills for this seminar is now online! It is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophotography , and as of an hour after its posting it has not been deleted or changed!

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Retail Analysis

1. I visited the retail store Eddie Bauer for my analysis. It is not a store I would normally shop at, and I have not been inside of it since it has had a style makeover. It seems to market to adults who are interested in outdoor activities, like hiking, camping, and climbing, or simply those seeking comfort, warmth, and quality.

2. a. The appearance of the store from the outside is very clean and clear: there is a white neon sign displaying the company's insignia on a charcoal background. The windows and doors are simple, transparent glass. The clothing you can see from the outside is organized and neat, and you can see touches of the siding, ceiling, floors, and so on from the outside.
b. The sounds inside the store vary between soft popular/adult alternative rock (I don't know who any of the specific artists were) and nature sound effects. At one point, a TV displaying a pretend feed of mountain climbers cut in sound effects and something like a radio broadcast over the loudspeaker.
c. The merchandise is laid about neatly on tables and hung on floor racks, and racks and hooks on the walls. All the displays are thematically similar, made of warm woods, metal, and with neutral colors.
d. The floor is wooden along the specific sections of clothing (women's on the right, men's on the left) with a section of flagstone paved along the middle of the store.
e. The signs on the walls both advertise the clothes and the situations in which they could ideally be used. Right now, heading into the winter season, they display pictures of mountains and mountain climbers in extreme conditions (wearing Eddie Bauer clothing, of course), and also proclaim the details of certain sales, specials, and new products. (there is also a television that kind of acts as a moving sign with constantly changing details.)
f. The cashier area contains the largest banner showing outdoor sports and clothing. The countertop is sleek and smooth, structured maybe like an outdoor checkpoint or something with its metal structure. It is surrounded by accessories (mostly men's), extra merchandise, and gift cards.

3. I feel this company tries to project an image of comfort and sport that one would hope to find in nature. The store has a very natural feel, mostly being decorated with wood, stone, and images of mountains, sky, and clouds. The layout and floorplan are very organized and neat, perhaps unnatural but in a way which offer an organic flow from display to display, and most clothing and accessories are made in neutral or earthy tones, something that also reflects the ideas of nature and natural sport.

4. The store is rather calming and so the customers were all very calm as well. They moved slowly among the displays and stopped to seriously consider a lot of products instead of just breezing past everything. Also interestingly, most (if not all) of the store's customers are not at all the type it seems to market to -- think middle-aged bargain-hunting women with glasses and bowl cuts as compared to young, adventurous, mountain-climbing types. I don't recall seeing a single male customer, only young boys tagging along with their mothers. The men's side of the store was completely unoccupied except perhaps for women shopping for their husbands, boyfriends, and/or fathers.

5. I was somewhat taken aback by the design of this store, never really having been inside and not really knowing exactly what or to whom they were marketing. I was guessing the store would be much more casual, perhaps less outdoorsy, and definitely found the discrepancy between target consumers and actual consumers hilarious if nothing else. I also thought it was interesting how well they pulled off earthy, natural side of the marketing - while I'm not attracted to extreme sports and their products are not my usual taste, the side of me that does appreciate nature and earthiness actually kind of wanted to buy a scarf or a hat or something (another plus that has pretty much nothing to do with the store's design is that almost all their products are made with natural materials - cotton, cashmere, fleece, wool, feathers. Who knew!). In all, I'd say that alone means the design of the store was successful.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Egg Drop

For Wednesday, I designed and built an egg drop container with my partner Sanjay (blog available here: http://designintelligence121292.blogspot.com/ .) We brainstormed ideas to try and make the container as protective as possible for the egg inside. We did a little bit of research to find some ideas on structurally sound containers. We knew we needed to have buffer zones along the outside of the container, so that these attachments would take the beating from the fall instead of the egg inside. Likewise, we added some structure to the main container by adding supports on the inside of the box so it would not dent or collapse on impact. unfortunately, what we didn't account for was the potential for the box to be topheavy - the one place where we didn't add extra buffer zones, expecting it to land on the bottom, was the part it landed on. It flipped in midair during the fall, and the egg broke. However, we did learn through our own failure and other groups' success just what it takes to build a protective container.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

The Science of Shopping

1.The most important points of this article are the various different identifiers of how and why we shop. Companies are reacting to new research in shopping behaviors - namely that people don't shop as often as they used to, and shopping habits vary vastly between male and female shoppers. How do stores set up their merchandise in order to sell optimally to a fickle market of consumers? According to this article, a number of variants are extremely important, even which side of a walkway a store is located on and what types of businesses surround the store. I feel that the observations about how a store is decorated and how it is set up to sell between men and women is extremely important, noting all the visual research that Paco Underhill conducted to understand styles of shopping and the way that men and women make shopping decisions. The aesthetic and physical setup of the store even influences shoppers - a store that makes them feel a certain way or think certain things about the product they are buying can have all the influence in the world, and likely the aesthetic of a store reflects the ideas behind the brand or the product they are selling. All of these together, plus other factors, are important to consider when trying to design and sell a product as well as a place in which to sell it.

2. I don't feel I am intensely influenced by a store's design - or if I am influenced by a store design, I try to keep other factors in mind when shopping there. While I find myself intensely attracted to certain aesthetics within a store - such as Urban Outfitters or Anthropology, both very vintage and kitschy stores, or Banana Republic and Gap, whose aesthetics are very clean and welcoming - it does not necessarily mean I will shop at those stores more frequently or buy items there that I would not buy elsewhere. Stores whose aesthetic does not really jump out at me will not deter me from still spending far too much money there - like Target, which I feel is not the most attractive store to be in, but I buy a massive amount of merchandise every time I go. (However, conversely, if I intensely dislike a store's aesthetic, I am not likely to ever shop there. Think: Hot Topic or the Dollar Store, which give me headaches for the opposite reasons: one is over-designed, one under-designed.) As a female shopper, convenience isn't my priority and so I keep other factors in mind as well, such as the fact that many things you can find at Urban Outfitters are available for a miniscule fraction of the price at a thrift store, and the necessity for certain items (yes, I love these shoes and I love the image they will give me, but do I really need another pair of black flats when I already have at least two?).

3. Retail store checklist!
  • Where the store is located
  • What is displayed on the right hand side (where most people turn first)
  • How the sections are arranged in the floor plan (specifically, segregated men's and women's sections)
  • The aesthetic factors of the store (layout, decor, flooring, music playing, wall colour, scent)
  • How the sections are arranged organizationally (where are the items located? How are they organized and presented? Are things simpler for men, and is there more space for women? For grocery stores, are junk food items located where kids will grab them and want them?)

Sunday, October 10, 2010

"Isn't it Iconic?" and "The Power of the Box"

1. Packaging design can be very important in buying a product. The package is what catches our attention at a store, and what convinces us that whatever product inside is worth buying. Of course, reputation and prior experience with a product can be extremely important in choosing what to buy. But if you are interested in trying a new product or switching to a different product, the package is probably what will attract you to it. Once, I was debating between two different brands of shampoo to switch too when my old brand ran out and I didn't want to stick with it. I actually chose the new brand I did because the bottle it came in was clear; I could actually see the product inside and know the density and consistency of the formula. This was so helpful in knowing what product I would actually be using. I made the same decision about a bottle of soap which was clear and interestingly shaped, as compared to a cheaper brand whose bottle was solid and rectangular. The decorative element of the soap bottle also helped as a decorative element in the bathroom without having to transfer its contents to a separate store-bought decorative soap holder, so when entertaining, the bathroom effortlessly looked nicer.

2. Fast food companies are very iconic: McDonald's, especially, has never drastically altered its logo, and its food packages (especially Happy Meal boxes and nugget containers) may not always be the same they once were, but they appear frequently in commercials and ads because that's what we remember. Other iconic products include Izze and Pom fruit juices (both with distinctive bottles), Starbucks cups, chip and junk food packages (Planter's nut containers, Lays, Cheetos, Fritos, and Doritos bags, cereal boxes, cracker boxes), and store brand products whose boxes reflect the design and logo of the chain.

3. Packaging has to be functional without being difficult to use or distracting. We appreciate packages that make sense to open, create little waste, and don't take up more space than necessary. The box my laptop came in was wondrous -- the lid opened easily and re-closed just as well, with tabs and flaps to keep it secure but not to distract. The padding was adequate to protect the device, but not extraneous as to create extra waste. The shape of the interior cushioned the computer as well as the accessories (charger, extension cord, manuals, and software) without wasting space OR taking up too much of it.  The product mentioned above, Izze juice, has a very distinctive and successful package. Sold in clear glass bottles in varying sizes and shapes similar to those of typical beer or soda bottles, it contains sparkling fruit juice with a simple, colorful, and attractive sliced-fruit design on the front (the design is very similar to the Ciao Bella gelato packaging mentioned in Gordon's article). The clean, white metal cap also looks like a typical beer/soda cap, but it conveniently does not require a bottle opener as it screws off. The juice also comes in small, simple ergonomic cans about the size and shape of Red Bull energy drinks. However, the solid, bright colors and simple logo reflect the company's iconic image while remaining attractive. The boxes both kinds of juice come in are simple, recycled (and recycle-able) cardboard. The earth-friendly simplicity of the product design is what also makes it attractive - the lack of plastic used anywhere in this brand means a steeper price in the store, but reasonably due to the fact that it avoids the use of a limited resource or the staggering amount of energy and money needed to recycle plastic.

On the other hand, If it is difficult to get a package open without completely destroying the package or harming the contents, I consider the design a failure. Likewise, if something generates a lot of waste with its packaging, it isn't worth using. As for the former, I find that packages for technological accessories are horrendous - headphones, data storage, computer mice, etc. all come in those plastic shape-conforming packages with welded sides that have to be completely cut open to get the contents out. Then, if you are dissatisfied with the product, it is completely impossible to return it. Frustratingly, I ordered a textbook from Amazon.com and the unusual cardboard envelope it arrived in was so hard to get open that I ripped the paperback's cover trying to get it out. As for a wasteful product, we all remember being in elementary school and having a Lunchable at lunchtime. I particularly remember the pile of trash that the product would generate as I unwrapped the food: first the box, then the shrink-wrapped tray, then the shrink-wrapped individual pieces, then the packets of sauce, the pouch, straw, and straw wrapper for the juice, and the wrapper for whatever dessert the lunch included. The box contained more trash than food, and the waste it must have generated was enough to give an environmentalist an aneurysm. In this way, we can clearly identify why some packages, though they may be adequately attractive or convenient, are still inadequate as far as usability is concerned.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Know it All

1. The main point of the article Know it All by Stacy Schiff is to bring to light the ideology and history behind Wikipedia. While not the most reliable source of reference on the web, Wikipedia certainly has the greatest number of viewers and editors of any reference source currently available, and it is the largest and most readily available (it is free and available worldwide). This article discusses the development and history behind the database, as well as the setup of users, editors, admins and owners, and the knowledge-spreading philosophy behind the huge, free encyclopedia.

2. Last year, Nature published a survey comparing forty-two entries on scientific topics on Wikipedia with their counterparts in Encyclopædia Britannica. According to the survey, Wikipedia had four errors for every three of Britannica’s, a result that, oddly, was hailed as a triumph for the upstart. Such exercises in nitpicking are relatively meaningless, as no reference work is infallible. Britannica issued a public statement refuting the survey’s findings, and took out a half-page advertisement in the Times, which said, in part, “Britannica has never claimed to be error-free. We have a reputation not for unattainable perfection but for strong scholarship, sound judgment, and disciplined editorial review.”

I think this passage is important not only because it shows Wikipedia is nearly as reliable a source as any, but also because it cites the source of the data that supports this statement. The passage doesn't just say, "Wikipedia is as reliable a source as any," but rather says, "Wikipedia is almost as reliable a source as any and here are the numbers and here is the place where the numbers were found." The supporting evidence makes for a much stronger argument.

3. “Wikipedia is to Britannica as rock and roll is to easy listening,” [Wales] suggested.


While this quote does not directly relate to the design elements of the two encyclopedias, it does describe the chasm in the philosophies behind them - which plays largely into the design. Britannica is a professional, well-written encyclopedia which exists for the main purpose of knowledge distribution. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is made to be simple, accessible, and available to people all around the world. Britannica, therefore, has a much more sophisticated and lofty design, while Wikipedia's is simple and clean. The search and editing functions on Wikipedia are easy to use and find, while Britannica is not editable to the general masses (despite the expertise of many in the general masses) and searches using keywords instead of article title. Altogether, Britannica is a more reliable source with more backings and a loftier design that makes it more difficult to use, but at less cost than the trust errors with Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is easy to use, accessible, and faster than Britannica, and only marginally less reliable.