Graeme Findlay

IDEO

Page 2 of 2

Lux: How might newer software products like modo affect the design process that has heretofore been dominated by CAD or CAD-like products?

GF: modo allows me to design whilst in a CAD environment. I can rough up a form and tweak it with ease, even with a client next to me. Traditionally CAD was something you did at the end of a project, or even you didn’t do at the end — an engineer would have to model things up for you and you’d certainly never have a client next to you as it would be too slow and boring to make changes there and then.

With modo you can fit CAD into any stage, you can think and refine in modo rather than know exactly what you’re supposed to build before going in there.

I like to think of modo as a tool, it does its job well and I know how I can use it with my skills and my other software. modo is flexible — I can model up characters for real-time 3D, I can model up concepts for rapid prototyping or I can create realistic images or animations. If you can imagine it, then modo can bring that idea to life in a number of ways.

modo as a tool fits well with other prototyping methods, whether I need to make a foam model, a sketch or a rendering, it’s up to the designer to decide what level and type of prototype is suitable for the project stage.

Lux: CAD sort of came in as a technician’s tool. Some of the early CAD programs were really attempts to automate manual drafting. When you both expose young students to products like modo, do they want to learn it or is it still too hard to use and (for lack of a better term “CAD-like”) for their tastes?

GF: I think the initial view of any “CAD” program is always a bit daunting for any new student. There are so many options and text that it can sometimes feel that there’s too much to learn. However children are much more confident in software than adults so I don’t see the next generation having as many issues. Twelve year olds are writing databases in flash, rapid prototyping models and making games in school already, it’s really only a problem for people who come to CAD later in their career.

The user groups I tend to introduce modo to are 20-35 years olds who have design experience but need a tool to visualize their ideas. modo is a good mix of easy to learn and advanced features. Within an hour you can have a basic model and render, or you can spend days/weeks/months creating something more complex. I always say that CAD software works as hard you do and with modo you only have to work a little to get a lot. In that I mean you have to be prepared to learn new skills to do something new or different in your skill set. With surface modeling it can be frustrating for new users to learn how to model a shape they want. modo allows you to model in a more natural manner, by pushing and pulling. However with all CAD software you have to use the right tool for the right job and there’s always a number of different ways to make something.

The render preview in modo is something that should be standard in all visualization software. Once you get used to it, it’s difficult to accept anything less. It also makes rendering easier for new users as they can see a direct result of their input instead of rendering lots of tests.

Lux: One thing I have always thought was interesting is how few design visualizations actually incorporate humans in them? Any thoughts on why this is or is not true in your experiences?

GF: Humans in design visualizations always look odd as you have to put a lot of time into the human model to get it to look real, or its simply just not required to demonstrate the visual. I always like users to create images that look like real people have used them. In that I mean if you’re doing an environment or architecture scene, don’t make everything symmetrical, leave stuff around, make it look like someone is using that space. It’s the same with products, visualize them as they would be used, this I think brings a sense of reality to visuals but it can also make an image intriguing without adding a human model.

Lux: 3D printing and hardcopy has really come a long way. Please share what role 3D printing had in the project noted in the introduction.

GF: For Anthony and Fiona’s work, I was able to model up the concepts in modo quickly and we rapid prototyped small models to check the form and concepts were looking right. Sitting at a computer designing a concept can be deceptive when judging the scale/form and experience of an object. Making real prototypes whether they be rapid prototyped or quick foam models is beneficial to assess the overall design.

Often time is the biggest constraint on projects so selecting the right tool for the right job is important. I knew this kind of shape adjustment for Anthony and Fiona was going to be tedious using a surface modeler so I wanted to try modo to avoid the constant re-building of forms. Although the models are quite simple in form, their shapes had to be crafted to convey the right image for the concept. This involved a bit of softening and straightening to get what was in Anthony and Fiona’s head into a 3D form.

The robot concepts were modeled in modo 201, then rapid prototyped in sections. These sections were then stuck together and then sanded and sprayed to become the final pieces in the exhibition. Rapid prototyping allowed the pieces to be manufactured hollow and cut down on the time needed to create the real concepts.

James and Jimmy’s Smell + concepts were also modeled up in modo then rapid prototyped. The rapid prototype models were then cast in flexible polyurethane rubber as the final pieces.

Lux: Do you envision a future where we will download “products” that we will “manufacture” in our own homes and offices?

It’s only a matter of time before the price comes down for the machinery for rapid manufacture, I’d say within 20 years we’ll have a basic level of this technology in our homes. This could be something which can download simple plastic parts or something more complex like a complete mobile phone with rapid manufactured circuitry intact.

This technology has huge implications far wider than just making products for the home. It has the potential to reduce the transportation of manufactured goods, reduce excessive packaging and recycling could be made easier by re-using “downloaded” products back into the rapid manufacture machine. Hospitals and emergency work in remote areas could simply download parts anywhere in the world. Space exploration could be made easier by manufacturing parts in space rather than flying them up. Rapid manufacture has the potential to make things instant, in the way downloading software today is more convenient than waiting to go down to the store to buy it. The raw materials that are needed for manufacture could one day be as simple as picking up a printer cartridge. It doesn’t stop at simple objects either, electronics could be rapid manufactured allowing machines to repair and maintain themselves and when you look at the materials used in rapid manufacture, organic material like skin and bone could one day be reproduced this way.

Lux: Will consumers have an increased role as designers of their own products? I mean beyond product configurators…

There is a balance of effort and reward here. Of course there will be consumers who will spend endless hours creating a product just for them, but the majority of consumers enjoy the shopping experience and discovery of something which they like without a huge effort.

Rapid manufacture could allow a higher level of customization for each user, but would have to be done in a way that was low effort for the consumer. For example shoe designs could be tailored to fit the exact shape of someone’s foot buy scanning a foot in store and also building the design in the store.

As 3D software gets easier to learn and more widely available we’ll see more users becoming confident with creating their own 3D designs. Spore Creature Creator by Electronic Arts is one of these amazing pieces of software which has simplified the 3D modeling environment allowing anyone to create their own monster: www.spore.com.

Lux: Manufacturers who are trying to be green are being urged to think about the entire product lifecycle when designing “stuff.” Maybe we need to not assume products will be manufactured per se. We have many virtual products already (software being one for example). Any thoughts on how virtual products may become more common?

I think what virtual products lack at the moment is the sensorial experience. In the real world we can touch, smell, and taste objects as well as see and hear them. The virtual object only allows the visual and some of the audible experience. Real objects wear and tear, they become older and can have sentimental value. Objects can be social, and deliver emotional signals. Smell and taste can invoke memories and give pleasure to the user. In combination these senses deliver us a rich experience and virtual objects would need to explore the sensorial appeal of their creations to make them more engaging and valuable.

Lux: Thank you for your time and insight.

Graeme Findlay can be contacted through his web site: www.dlay.co.uk