DUYGUSAL DEVAMLILIK İÇİN TASARIM: EV AYDINLATMASI TASARIMI ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 283 - 296, 22.06.2022

Gizem Hediye Eren

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1133905

Öz

Tasarımcıların, tasarım yoluyla araştırmadaki aktif katılımlı deneyimi, kendi tasarım uygulamalarından
bilgi üretmesi ve bunu paylaşmasında etkilidir. Bu çalışmada birincil amaç, tasarım yoluyla araştırma süreciyle
bir ev aydınlatmasının ürün ömrünü iyileştirmek için sürdürülebilir çözümler geliştirmektir. “Duygusal
devamlılık için tasarım”a özel bir odaklanma ile “ürün kişiselleştirme” ve “yerelleştirme” etkili sürdürülebilir
tasarım yaklaşımları olarak ele alınmıştır. Kullanıcıların üretime katılması anlamına gelen kendin-yap yaklaşımı
ve kullanıcılara yapımı tamamlaması için alan bırakan yarı ürün mantığı, kişiselleştirme açısından yararlanılan
kavramlar olmuştur. Tasarım yoluyla araştırma sürecinin çıktısı, farklı üretim ölçekleriyle üretilmiş, kendin-yap
ve yarı tamamlanmış ürün mantığı ile kişiselleştirmeyi kolaylaştıran özellikleri içeren bir duvar lambasıdır.
“Yerelleştirme” için farklı ölçeklerde üretim fırsatları araştırılmış ve yarı tamamlanmış ürün olarak bir tasarım
kiti, sürdürülebilir bir tasarım çözümü olarak kabul edilmiştir. Tamamlayıcı dantel abajurun üretiminde kendinyap
yaklaşımından yararlanılmıştır. Sürdürülebilirlik için tasarım çerçevesinde, yerel olarak mevcut malzeme
ve üretim yeteneklerinin tasarım yoluyla araştırma süreciyle denenmesi ve bunlarla etkileşime geçilmesinin
sürdürülebilir tasarım çözümlerinin geliştirilmesini beslediği görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tasarım Yoluyla Araştırma, Sürdürülebilirlik, Duygusal Devamlılık, Kendin-Yap, Yarı Tamamlanmış Ürünler

DESIGN FOR EMOTIONAL DURABILITY: THE CASE OF HOUSEHOLD LIGHT DESIGN

Öz

Designers’ hands-on experience in research through design process contributes them to produce
and share knowledge from their own design practices. In this study, the primary purpose was exploring
sustainable design concepts and developing solutions for improving the product lifespan of household light
with research through design process. With a particular focus on “emotionally durable design”, “product
personalisation”, and “localisation” were considered fruitful concepts. The do-it-yourself (DIY) approach,
which means that users participate in production, and the halfway product rationale, which leaves space for
users to complete the production, were the concepts used in personalisation. The outcome of the research
through design process was a wall lamp manufactured with different scales of production, involving
personalisation features facilitated by DIY and halfway product rationale. For “localisation”, different scales of
production opportunities were explored, and a design kit as a halfway product was considered as a sustainable
design solution. DIY approach was benefited for producing complementary lace lampshade. In the design
for sustainability framework, it is seen that experimenting and engaging with locally available materials and
manufacturing capabilities in the research through design process nurtured developing sustainable design
solutions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Research Through Design, Sustainability, Emotional Durability, Do-It-Yourself, Halfway Products.

Kaynakça

• • Bang, A.L., Krogh., P., Ludwigsen, M., Markussen, T., (2012). The Role of Hypothesis in Constructive Design Research. Proceedings of The Art of Research IV: Making, Reflecting and Understanding. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Helsinki, Finland.
• • Barthes, R. (1991). Mythologies. (Translation by A. Lavers) 25th Edition. The Noonday Press New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
• • Bhamra, T., and Lofthouse, T. (2007). Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
• • Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., and Tang, T. (2011). Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour. The Design Journal, 14(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611X13091688930453Ateş, T. (2016). Türk Devrim Tarihi. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• • Blom, J. O., (2000). Personalisation: A taxonomy. In Extended Abstracts Of The Chi 2000 Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems, 1–6 April 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands. New York: ACM, 313–314.
• • Blom, J. O. and Monk, A. F., (2003). Theory of Personalisation Of Appearance: Why Users Personalise Their Pcs And Mobile Phones. Human-Computer Interaction, 18 (3), 193–228.
• • Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
• • Celikoglu, O. M. (2013). Three dimensions of lace: Reading the Meaning Of A Traditional Product From Different Perspectives. In the Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement (DeSForM2013) (s. 34-40), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, September 22, 2013.
• • Ceschin, F., and Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of Design For Sustainability: From Product Design to Design for System Innovations and Transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118-163.
• • Chapman, J. (2008). Emotionally durable design: Sustaining Relationships Between Users and Domestic Electronic Products. Doctoral Dissertation. Brighton, UK: University of Brighton
• • Chapman, J. (2009). Design for Emotional Durability. Design Issues, 25(4), 29-35.
• • Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E., (1981). The Meaning Of Things: Domestic Symbols And The Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• • Dogan, C. (2012). Product Design For Sustainability: Development of a New Graduate Course In Industrial Design. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 29 (2), 312-329.
• • Dogan, C. (2018). Integrated Scales Of Design And Production For Sustainability With A Focus On Graduate Design Work In Lighting (pp. 470-487). S. Walker (Ed.), Design roots: Culturally significant designs, products and practices. Bloomsbury, UK.
• • Dogan, C., and Walker, S. (2008). Localisation and the Design And Production Of Sustainable products. International Journal of Product Development, 6(3), 276-290.
• • Durrant, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., and Yee, J. (2017). Research Through Design: Twenty-First Century Makers and Materialities. Design Issues, 33(3), 3-10.
• • Franke, N. and Piller, F. T., (2004). Value Creation By Toolkits For User Innovation And Design: The Case Of The Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), 401–415.
• • Haines-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J., Aliakseyeu, D., (2018). Emotional Durability Design Nine—A tool for Product Longevity. Sustainability 10, 1948, 1-19. doi:10.3390/su10061948
• • Herriott, R. (2019). What Kind Of Research Is Research Through Design? Paper Presented in International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) Conference 2019 Design Revolutions. Manchester, UK. 2-5 September 2019.
• • Ko, K., Ramirez, M. Ward, S. (2011). Long-Term Product Attachment: A Sustainable Design Approach for Optimising the Relationship Between Users and Products. In the Proceedings of the Tao of Sustainability, International Conference on Sustainable Design Strategies in a Globalization Context (pp. 580–587), Beijing, China, October 27–29.
• • Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The Endogenous-Exogenous Partition In Attribution Theory. Psychological Review, 82(6), 387–406. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.387
• • Lilley, D. (2009). Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Strategies and Perceptions. Design Studies, 30(6), 704-720.
• • Mugge, R. (2007). Product Attachment. Doctoral dissertation. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Industrial Design Engineering.İncelemeleri Dergisi, 15 (15). 131-145.
• • Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., and Schifferstein, H. N. J., (2008). Product Attachment: Design Strategies to Stimulate The Emotional Bonding To Products. P. Hekkert and H.N.J. Schifferstein, (Eds.) Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 425–440.
• • Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P., and Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). Emotional bonding With Personalised Products. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 467-476.
• • Page, T. (2014). Product Attachment and Replacement: Implications for Sustainable Design. International Journal of Sustainable Design 2(3), 265–282.
• • Papanek, V. (1971). Design For The Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. Pantheon Books, New York.
• • Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analysing own design activity. Design Studies, 28(5), 463-483.
• • Pinski, J., Kane, F., and Evans, M. (2017). Craft Practice For Sustainability. Re-Thinking Commercial Footwear Design Process With A Woven Textile Approach. In the Proceedings of REDO Cumulus Conference. Kolding, Denmark.
• • Ravasi, D., and Rindova, V. (2004). Creating symbolic value: A cultural perspective on production and exchange. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1265021
• • Schifferstein, H. N. J., and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. H. (2008). Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 1-13.
• • Schreier, M. (2006). The value increment of mass-customised products: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), 317-327.
• • Van Nes, N., and Cramer, J. (2005). Influencing product lifetime through product design. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), 286-299. doi:10.1002/bse.491
• • Verbeek, P. P., and Kockelkoren, P. (1998). The Things That Matter. Design Issues, 14(3), 28-42.
• • Walker S. (2006). Sustainable by Design: Explorations in theory and practice. Earthscan, London: Sterling: VA.
• • Walker, S. (2010). Sambo’s stones: Sustainability and Meaningful Objects. Design and Culture, 2(1), 45-62.
• • Weightman, D. and McDonagh, D., 2003. People are Doing It For Themselves. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI’03) (pp. 34–39). B. Hanington and J. Forlizzi (Eds.), Pittsburgh, PA. New York, 23–26 June, ACM.
• • Wolf, M., and McQuitty, S. (2011). Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: Diy Motivations And Outcomes. AMS Review, 1(3-4), 154–170. doi:10.1007/s13162-011-0021-2