What exactly is body conscious design? What are the criteria with which to evaluate the bodyconsciousness of a certain product? How can we create a more solid and shared basis for our certificationprocess?
These questions came up recently in the context of a certification request to ABCD (the association for bodyconscious design). We thought it would be nice and interesting to throw a wider net and invite all members of the ABCD community to find answers to these questions and learn from each other in the process. Would you like to join the dialogue?
Hereunder a first list of thoughts, just to inspire your thinking, feeling and action ... It's ripe and green and totally uncensored, so feel free to add your own ideas and break down these ;-)
You're welcome!
Brainstormlist of criteria for evaluating the bodyconsciousness of design
1. Bodyconsciousness:
Freedom of flow, breath, movement: Does the product allow/facilitate/support the free flow of fluids, breath and movement?
Freedom of movement: Does it facilitate movement in all planes/directions?
Are all my bodyparts free to move?
Does it allow me to move from my center and/or to connect all body parts to my breath and center?
Does it support "spinal integration" or integration in general?
Does it support the lines of force?
Effect on connective tissue: Does it facilitate the connective tissue/matrix to function as an integrated whole?
Effect on nervous system: What is its effect on the nervous system? Does it cause stress or is it relaxing?
Structural effect: What is its effect on the skeleton, muscles, organs, ...
Effect on psyche: What is its effect on the psyche?
User-friendliness: Is it easy to use or is it confusing?
Stress (?): Does it cause stress to the body or the mind?
...
2. Design:
Originality: Is this an original concept / a re-interpretation of an existing concept / one in a dozen?
Appeal: Is this product appealing to the eye? Do I like how it looks?
Material: What is the effect of the material on the body (does it feel nice or does it itch, sweat, stink, ... ? ) [:-D I am beginning to like this ...]
Effect on self-image: Does it give me a positive feeling, strengthen my positive self-image.
3. Sustainability / "indirect" effects
Productionprocess: Is this product made in a bodyfriendly environment? Are the machines on which it is made bodyfriendly for the producers? [Or is it for example made in a chinese sweatshop where hundreds of workers sit bended behind machines in buildings without light and fresh air ];
material: is it recyclable? [or will our grandchildren suffer from the leftovers of this products?]; Is it made in a bodyfriendly process? [or are the workers suffering rash, lungproblems, etc]
Does it have an easy repair process?
Does it have a good longevity - lasting, durable materials and workpersonship?
comment from Galen Cranz, just received by email:
ReplyDeleteI'm pasting here my immediate responses to your good idea of developing criteria for helping this group become a more active community!
Galen
-does it compress joints? or allow joints to be open (with flow of synovial fluid, nearby blood and lymph vessels)? [this is close to freedom of fuilds already listed but calling out joints in particular is probably important.]
-do the soles of my feet rest on the ground when seated or standing (Cranz, 2000) and receive contact even when in the lounge position? (Ramey, 2010)
-are my thighs free of pressure, especially the underside when seated?
-do my sitbones make contact with seating surfaces?
-is my spine in neutral (with all major curves, lumbar and thoracic and cervical) present even if elongated? no one curve should be sacrificed for the others.
- this means the pelvis needs to rotate forward, not backward, which in turn for most people means a seat pan should tilt forward slightly. It also means there should be space for the gluteus maximus ("butt")
-is my neck free to turn and bend side to side?
-are my eyes able to be in the their neutral posture (that is, cast 15 degrees down from straight out), and and are they invited to move up, down, left, right and all around?
-ideally all the senses should be addressed even if only to be soothed (quiet, smooth, or oderless as appropriate)
-p.158 of Cranz, The Chair has a list of body conscious design criteria for sitting in particular
Design: does it signal or sympbolize body-friendliness
As we discussed, I also feel it is important to consider the materials the object is made of both for its feel on the body, its sustainable (or not) process of construction, or it ability to be recycled.
ReplyDeleteDesign could also do something to futher the whole - give a greater sense of integration with self, with others, with nature.
Somatic components have been nicely covered...each object, item, will evoke other physiological considerations for supporting the living body and our connections to one another.
Martha
Dr. Martha Eddy, CMA, RSMT
www.MovingOnCenter.org/DynamicSMTT
Does the design promote movement?
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, then some of the other criteria might be altered somewhat. Like soles of feet on the ground. That might be the case for part of the time but not all the time.
Another thought is about the external perception of the design. This can be quit subjective and vary from individual to individual and culture to cutlture. Most people for instance would perceive an active sitting chair as not body friendly and don't want it. Or they may not even recognize what it is or is used for. That happens to be the case with this whole area, I have found. The biggest question I get is "What is a zafu?" or "What is that used for?" However, I have found if it's primary purpose is to be body friendly, then I don't want to alter the shape to fit other people's flawed notions of comfort and health.
Patrick Clark
www.bodyfriendlyfurniture.com
We might want to define healthy stress such as muscle toning vs. unhealthy stress such as uneven pressure on joints, vertebrae. Something like 'health promoting stress" vs. "detrimental stress". For instance, in yoga there is finding the 'edge' and then 'releasing'.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a chart listing all the possible criteria to consider. You take a design and you rate is say 1-10 for each criteria. It doesn't have to meet a perfect 10 on all criteria. It may be 0 on some and 10 on others. Just like judging a sports competition or something. It gets certain strenths and weaknesses, but in the end it ends up with a certain rating by adding up all the numbers. It might be useful to take all the vernacular designs we can find and rate them to establish part of the language and qualities. Then the new designs could kind of have a measuring stick so to speak.
ReplyDeleteGreat! I was just thinking what would happen if we put some of the "icons of bodyconscious design" to the test.
ReplyDeleteI volunteer to do this for vibram's five finger shoes, designed by Robert Fliri.
And I realize that the criteria that we have now are more or less drawn up with either "fashion" or "chairs" in mind. Can we also use them for evaluating a building? Or do you then need additional or different criteria? And what about cars, bicycles, landscapes, office-equipment, graphics, websites, etc?
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteI recently intrested in "designers perspectives" on artifacts.
what you think about body-conscious design from designer's perspective?If Designer's cultural preconsciousness is considerable, how it takes place in BCD?
since there are many red-lines for designers, there are many red-lines for users...
Do BCD suggests red-lines or free choices!?
I think we have to make a liberal definition for our design approach!
--------
@ Nelleke:
Multidisciplinary discussions can be useful. Seems ABCD Strongly focused on Design! not its Relations. for instance considering what BCD offers to intraction designers.
Nice. But I think nothing, for I am not a designer ;-) But you are, aren't you? Can you give your designer's perspective on body conscious design? It would be most helpful in this dialogue!
ReplyDeleteI agree bcd could have a lot to offer to interaction designers - for it is almost by definition about the relation between the design and its user vv. We have until now not done much for that specific group of designers as far as I know. Do you have a suggestion?
Nelleke
of course.
ReplyDeletefor me,as a designer, there are so many ambiuities about User-Design-Designer perceptual process.
I think there's no coherent relationship between designer's design methodology(roadmap) and bcd checkpoints.
since, my intresting research field is Design Philosophy, I suggest Bartneck's abstract classification here:
Human <-> Design <-> Artifact
note, design plays as a medium roll to do s.th.
To do what?
let's take a look at Jordan's user needs hierarchy derived from Maslow's Human Needs Hierarchy:
4.Pleasurability
/\
3.Usefulness
/\
2.Functionality
/\
1.Safety
Seems bdc design process has to take a dynamic approach to Jordans' hierarchy ro reach users's self-activatin key factors. it means there should be a flexible methodology to be involved with Human-Artifact in one hand and Designer-Design-User from the other hand, at the same time.
for ex. : HOW can BCD offer an effective systematic mechanisem to improve use-interface interactions based on user satifaction and pleasurability?(suppose an abstract question only...)
Next, we, ID students in IRAN, used to pass Gestalt Theory as a required unit to get involved with the Form and Space perceptions too.though it may make a fresh insight.
waiting to read your comments and suggestions...
M.Tohidifar
Hi Mostafa,
ReplyDeleteSorry for not reacting any sooner. I was waiting for other people to jump in, but since that doesn't happen - yet - I'll give it a try.
I can understand the theoretical basis of what you write (or at least I think so ...), but I have some trouble to operationalize it in view of our list.
What I realized in the past few weeks is that it may be more fitting to speak of "aspects", instead of "criteria"- which makes it more open and less judgmental. Hm ... Interesting.
To be continued, Nell
ps I intent to activate the network a little more tomorrow, in the hopes that more people will be join the talk.
In the meantime I received an email from Jader Tolja. He says that his opinion about what to do in terms of the question "what is bodyconscious design" has changed over time.
ReplyDeleteHe writes: ".The most important point of galen's book (Galen Cranz, the Chair, ND), or what was enlightening and new for me, was the artificiality of the chair concept. There is no such a thing as a perfect chair. The same with shoes, bags and so on. I think therefore that we should transition from the idea of "body conscious design as perfect tools versus body unconscious designs as outmoded concepts" towards just being aware of the effects of each one. In that sense I think we should also move from the original idea of "bcd certified" to "bcd tested"m in which we do nothing more than evaluate a product from a body perspective, to see what works and what not and at what physical and neurological price.
I'm more and more aware of how people get reactive towards anything that smells like a new must and end up refusing the whole story.
But to be honest, I don't yet totally agree with myself on this matter ;-)
Jader
Well, I know I agree with you! (at least on this aspect ...) ;-)
ReplyDeleteNelleke
There are many layers of what we call "design."
ReplyDeleteAs many have already written above, if we want to talk about design that is body conscious, we can start with objects and the tactile: relationship to the human body, material, texture.
Buildings and interior spaces must "fit" just as clothing and furniture do. The challenges are similar, because one size really never fits all.
But design of spaces can and ought to be body conscious, too. Proportion, natural light, relationship to the outdoors and built-in awareness of time of day and the seasons.
Karin
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteIt's been a while. A lot of things going on in my life ... one of them being to finalize a book on body conscious fashion, co-writing with jader tolja. It is now in the hands of the agent, who is going to sell it to publishers. Fingers crossed.
About the criteria for body conscious design: We haven't yet made a lot of progress on the details ... What I notice is that it is hard to establish "hard" criteria, for something that is obvious from a experiential, feeling point of view.
What did happen, is that we (the association for body conscious design ...) decided to replace "BCD certified" by "BCD tested". What's the big deal?, you may ask ... Well, for us it is crucial. We felt "BCD certified" was too "top-down", "one-way", "old-school" ... in which a group of experts, from their expert-throne, decide what is good and what's not ... "BCD-tested" on the other hand, fits more to what we want to be: a group of people with a lot of experience and expertise, who can enhance awareness of the effects of design on our bodies and mind. We think it is all about growing awareness, whatever the direction you decide to take in the end.
In that respect criteria also become a little less important - it is just that we need a couple of referencepoints that we (or anybody in fact) can use when we test a product and that we can communicate to designers.
What do you think?
I like this discussion! I too have found that there is a perceptual grid from which the potential user interacts with my designs. The western body has difficulty perceiving a backless chair as "comfortable". Many westerners no longer perceive even the carpeted floor as a comfortable location for a floor desk. They project their own discomfort into the experience. There's nothing more body conscious than the floor is there? I now prefer sleeping on the floor, or a floor like platform bed, the firmer the better, but it took some somatic retraining.
ReplyDeleteallow me to add a few other conciderations:cardiovascular contineous activity ,proprioception ,user agility, "High power pose " vs" C " pose , physical & mental wellness ,body muscle usage while sitting .
ReplyDeleteRafael Tal