People have a hard time conceiving ideas on their own. Unless that person is Alexander Graham Bell
or the Wright brothers, they most likely will not come up with the next best
thing. Before the car, the mode of
transportation was a regular horse. Horses were a great way of travel prior to the
development of the automobile. People
could only conceive of the idea of a faster horse; they couldn’t envision the
idea of an engine with four wheels, gas and brake pedal, and a steering
column. Post-Industrial Revolution early
versions of the automobile are traced back to a man in Germany, Karl Benz in 1885-1886.* He envisioned a new idea other than building
off the current models.
This short is just an example of how people view objects as
themselves and how the object can be improved.
Sometimes the object may need to be trashed and start with something
new. Although the common radio is not as
commonly used prior to the television, it is still used but in scarcities. A new technology (TV) was created because the
radio was being outdated and technology was improving. New concepts and ideas call for advances in
the industry. Ideas can be looked at for
a consumer position or the market view; what is better for the customer/market
price?
For Project 2, I redesigned the bike main screen more in
tuned for the user. I wanted them to be
able to get started quickly into their workout.
Most people struggle to find time in their busy schedules to make it to
the gym in the first place. I used the
user-centered approach while testing and redesigning the model. If I watched someone during their workout
without giving instructions, I could have seen a more situation-centric
approach. My design would have been
accustomed to that user over someone I was coaching, which would call for a completely
different machine design. If the person
chose to make their own workout with the advanced options and hill climbing, I
could have added different hill styles (elongated, short intervals, short and
steep slopes, etc.).
*Automobile reference:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html
Hey Bryan,
ReplyDeleteWhile you were getting at an argument the author made in your first paragraph, your post got muddled after that. Your second paragraph doesn't really address any of the questions asked for this entry. Your post comes across like you haven't looked at Chapter 3, since you never addressed the key questions which have to do directly with the reading. I would suggest that you re-examine the chapter and then reply here with your new thoughts.