As a designer coming from an architectural past,
do you find your ideals on environmentally-sound living space or urban sprawl sometimes conflicting with
your clients, especially when their industry is pre-fabricated housing?
Pre-fabricated housing? There is such a thing where you can order your house out of a catalog, in fact
that is part of how L.A. started. You used to be able to order a house out of Sears catalog — I’m not kidding
you. I could bite really deep into this one and go on for an hour on the beginnings of modernism and how its
origin came from a desire to prefabricate materials and construction, so that the common man could experience
the aspects of quality space that only the elite class could have at the time. But I will spare you all.
Home builders fill a need. I don’t believe in all their methods and practices, but the clients in that
industry that we have, do quality work and it is not prefabricated. They hire architects to design models
that respond to the demographic desires in a home, and many of them try to employ quality space design
and other factors into their designs. You will always get a better house by buying a lot, getting a
good architect, and trusting him to do his job. However, the cost and practicality of that is often
out of reach for many. Just like the cost of doing a great web site is out of reach for many and could
not really be justifiable to afford. So, they go to people that sell templates and they get what they
pay for. Is that bad? No, because their needs are not all that sophisticated. They just need to
disseminate some information; they are not trying to build a global brand. Just as a man or woman
is trying to provide a good home for their family, not build a house that makes them the envy of their
social circle. Does this discount the need for quality in architecture and or design? Absolutely not.
Different people have different cultures and needs, and some need a high level of sophistication that
others would not even understand if they had it. Whew…
Heh. Good points. I guess on the East Coast I’m used to seeing developers cut down everything
(and I do mean everything), re-landscape, and create miles of semi-expensive houses that all look very similar.
Yes, over development can be a tragic thing, but in areas where man is going to sprawl, existing nature
will be displaced by nature that is more manageable. It’s nothing new. Look at English gardens and parks.
The future will be interesting. Deforestation is something that is changing the planet. We need to find a
balance.
What is the importance of designers looking for more work, like what Juxt has done for HomeAid?
Can you talk about that project?
It is always good to do something that is for more than money. We have worked for a few nonprofits. To be
honest, they can at times be hard to work for because they exist out of their ability to get free stuff from
people, so they can be pretty demanding in some ways. However, ultimately, it is great to do work knowing your’re
not making any money, but you’re helping these people with a passion make a difference in the lives of other
human beings. Are we saints for doing this? No. The people at HomeAid, that are investing so much time and
energy, are the real saints. However, we can honestly say that we gave of our skillz to help them reach
their vision and make that difference. I know many people struggle with the materialism that we as designers
are so often a part of perpetuating. Doing things like this gives a sense of balance, a sense of humanity to
our jobs. I encourage people to do this for the good of us all.
Are today’s interactive designers talking/thinking enough about tougher topics such as usability for the
disabled or social responsibility (saying “no” to clients that sell harmful products like tobacco,
Hamburger Helper, etc.)?
Social responsibility has to be a personal choice. We have walked away from some projects because
of our beliefs and I would hope others do the same. But to your example, I know as many designers that
smoke, as I know that don’t, so that line of responsibility has to be a personal line in most cases.
As far as usability for the disabled — that is something that should be taken into consideration based
on the site’s target audience. In my past career as an architect, clients spent a great deal of time
and money dealing with accessibility issues in buildings and spaces that a disabled person would never
in a lifetime come across. But regardless, they had to accommodate them in the design. This, in the end,
for many businesses, meant that they could never feasibly improve their property because the cost to
accommodate the disabled would be too great to bother. So, in the end, they have a space that is not
working for them in many ways, and is also not accessible, and never will be. Don’t get me wrong, most
buildings should provide accessibility, but there is a line of common sense that should have
been maintained.
continued on next page
01 | 02 | 03
  |
