By Linda Tischler

David Kelley is well-known for his astute application of design thinking to many of life's intractable problems. Less known is that he's also a veritable Dr. Phil of good advice about life, careers, and the importance of not being a jerk.

"If you ask people, was there ever a teacher or mentor who changed your life, many hundreds of people would say that was David Kelley. I'm one of them," his brother, Tom Kelley, told me. "If they spread the word....you can figure the exponential effect."

In this spirit, we asked former students, co-workers and friends to share their favorite Kelley life lessons. Here's what they said:

"Success tends to focus your efforts, failure assures me that you try something different and eventually better." -- from Perry Kleban, CEO, Timbuk2

"You're the best version of yourself when you manage to have fun doing your work." -- from Chris Flink, IDEO

"You can't think your way through every problem. Trying things and engaging people helps you get unstuck." -- from George Kembel, executive director, Stanford d.school

"The greatest responsibility of any leader is to make new leaders. David knew that neither he, himself, nor any one person has all the answers. He empowers others to do stuff." -- from Tom Kelley, IDEO

"When I was going to design school in Chicago, at IIT, in 1989, a friend of mine and I went all the way to Evanston, a suburb that seemed unbelievably far away from school, to hear this guy David Kelley present at Northwestern University. The thing that was amazing to me was that he was talking about HOW designers should work, not about WHAT they should be working on. I remember thinking how right it sounded, and that it was a pretty fresh message among all the others I was getting about what it meant to be a designer in this world. I still hold true a lot of what he was saying then. -- from Ilya Prokopoff, IDEO

"The true brilliance of the human-centered design process is that it keeps us humble. I am in awe of his humbleness." -- from Susie Wise, Stanford d.school

"'Do not allow hierarchy and status into your teams, and your workplace because it will destroy collaboration." -- PK

"David can take the nature of any experience--from 'Let's go to the zoo to let's go to football game, to let's hear a speaker, to let's have cancer'--and bring the same intensity to all of them. He's in the moment like nobody I've ever known. He can take the naïve view of that moment and see what is unique about it, see its virtue and see what he can learn from it." -- from Jim Hackett, CEO, Steelcase

"David is one of those magical people who beams not only generous permission, but pure optimism, into anyone who works with him. His ability to empower others is built-in to the way he is, and the way he engages with people, and yet it is often nearly invisible at the moment of contact" -- from Tom Eich, IDEO

"There is no challenge, big or small, in the world that could not benefit from a healthy dose of cavalier creativity." -- CF

"Make the human element as important as the technical and business elements." -- GK

"Your failures interest me far more than your success." -- PK

"Leaders don't have to be scary. Or egomaniacal. Or people you have to watch yourself around. I've always felt like myself around him. I chalk this up to his being genuinely curious about what others have to say. -- IP

"David helped me realize that it's not what you work on, but whom you work with that makes all the difference. This, ironically, resonates even at a company that tackles some of the most exciting creative challenges in the world." -- CF

"Think with your hands, build something or try something, then talk about it, NOT the reverse." -- PK

"You don't have to choose between doing what you love and making a living." -- GK

"Better to be a jack of all trades than a master of one' (you will see more possibility then, you will be an empathetic leader to the experts, and you will be a more interesting person.)" -- PK

"These are the good old days." -- CF

written by Nick de la Mare, Associate Creative Director, frog design

There's a saying I remember from when I worked in advertising: "nothing kills a bad product faster than a good ad." That seemed to make a lot of sense when I heard it, but the more I look back I realize that it's defining things so narrowly as to be absurd. What IS a product anyway? A service-based thing like a house cleaner or a mechanic? A single-minded tool like a cup or hammer? Something digital and deeply nebulous like a Wi-Fi network? And what does "kill" mean in a world of constant innovation and updates in both successful and unsuccessful products? To compound that, what role does traditional advertising have to play anyway, especially as word-of-mouth is becoming the TRUE definer of success for so many products.

We're now in a place where production costs are down and competition is up, products are networked into systems, and getting the actual thing into users hands is becoming more important than telling them how cool it could be for them to try it. More and more we're letting people form opinions of their own, and changing the product to better fit those opinions. Brands are alive and sales channels are as elastic as the products themselves. The desire to get product out to individuals and then iterate based on incoming data goes by many names; perpetual beta, direct sampling, open-source, etc., etc., but all adhere to the same core thesis, as Brian Collins puts it: "The singular is often the universal. The more an experience matters, the faster the word goes out in a zillion-channel world."

What does this do to traditional advertising and top-down branding? For one thing you're seeing more and more ad and brand agencies getting into the product game, and that scares the hell out of the traditional players. Carl Alviani wrote an interesting article about it a few months ago in which he states:

"Ad agencies designing products has a sort of apocalyptic ring to it for many traditional ID folks, who may bristle at the idea of product design as just another way of getting people excited about buying. The small mound of moral high ground product designers have seized for themselves over the years is largely composed of statements about making things work better, last longer, offer more relevance. If that makes them sell better, goes the argument, then great, but don't think for a moment that market appeal is the primary motive; that's what ad agencies do. This breeds wariness, and while it might have some justification, it's also a little beside the point: the marketing landscape has shifted dramatically since the claim was first made."

That queasy feeling of reaching too far into the marketing world extends beyond the insecurities of traditional ID'ers. What happens when marketing and product converge; does that change the very essence or power of a product? Does it become more superficial, designed to impress for an instant rather than live with the user for long periods of time? Is superficiality and the short attention span taking over the world? Are we doomed to a Wall-E or Idiocracy like future? Well, perhaps traditional product designers shouldn't be so scared, or better yet, perhaps they're scared of the wrong thing.

Just as the newspaper world was blindsided by digital (the original fear being short-form articles and color in print ala. USA Today), the product design world is about to get a smack-down. It's not from any singular new innovation, but more from the multitude of them. As consumers we're at a tipping point where we no longer need brands or other top-down entities to mediate our experiences for us. In an impersonal world we crave conversation and for the first time we can conduct those conversations with the things we use; whether that comes in the form of constant updates that simulate the back and forth of person-to-person dialog, or through communication between objects where we act as the intermediaries. Strength doesn't come from singular many-to-one messages anymore, it's user-defined, one-to-one and elastic.

Again Brian Collins, "Now, even the best-crafted messages are attenuating to the vanishing-point. Media have subdivided into capillaries, too numerous and often too narrow to measure." Apply those words to a product and you get the Apple App Store; fundamentally a tool used as an opportunity to present the essence of a company in bite-sized pieces, each designed and defined by users for users.

Last word goes to Russell Davis, who pretty much sums it up:

"The point I'm groping towards is that as objects informationalize communication channels are getting built in. And there are ways of doing this that are mass, cheap and easy. Printing. Paper. Ink. RFID. And cleverer phones will be the perfect things to interact with these clever objects. This is what advertising and marketing and media people really need to get afraid of. All this web stuff is going to look like a picnic compared to the horrors that will be dealt to the agency and media businesses when every product has a communications channel built right in. And I suspect it's a channel that most brand-owners will feel a lot more comfortable with. Marketing/advertising was always a necessary evil for most businesses. And  Something bolted onto the culture. And they've never liked ITV. And having to do all this social networking stuff gives most of them the willies. But integrating communication and information into the product is something they can get behind quickly and easily.

I think. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this but I think it's interesting. I think there's a whole model here that integrates the conversation into the stuff, creating a much more natural relationship between people and things, with much less mediation in the middle."

Amen.

written by Margaret Heffernan

It took James Dyson 5,127 prototypes, 14 years of debt, and multiple lawsuits to create the top-selling upright vacuum cleaner in the United States.

Exasperated with his vacuum, James Dyson took some cardboard, kitchen scissors, and duct tape and patched together his first bagless machine. With some trepidation, he switched it on. "There were no explosions, no blasts of dusty air," Dyson recalls of that day in 1978.

"I was the only man in the world with a bagless vacuum cleaner!"

The British inventor could not have known then that it would take thousands more prototypes—and years of debt, lawsuits, fury, and frustration—before he manufactured what is now the top-selling upright vacuum cleaner in the United States. Along the way, he would discover the simple secret to success: "People buy products if they're better."

Dyson, 61, didn't start out as an engineer. He had trained at the Royal College of Art in London. There he'd discovered a love of industrial design and collaborated on his first product, the Sea Truck, an indestructible boat for hauling just about anything between islands.

He started his first company to manufacture and sell another invention, the Ballbarrow, a radical redesign of the wheelbarrow that used a ball to stabilize an otherwise wobbly vehicle. Garden center owners giggled nervously, but customers got it. "People will make leaps of faith and get excited by your product," says Dyson, "if you just get it in front of them." But disagreements with the board led Dyson to leave his company and his invention. In his "naked naïveté," as he puts it, he had assigned the patent to the company rather than to himself. It was a mistake he wouldn't make again.

Not one to suffer setbacks, Dyson set to work on perfecting the vacuum. Key to his innovative design was a cyclone, a cone spinning so fast that its centrifugal force sucked up dust and flung it at the canister's walls. He hoped to license the design to European companies already in the business, but he encountered a chronic defensiveness: If there were a better way to make vacuums, surely the market leaders would have found it.

In 1986, eight years after his original breakthrough, Dyson licensed his designs to a Japanese company. The deal didn't give him a significant cut of the annual $20 million in sales, but it was enough to keep him going while he looked for a U.S. manufacturer.

Dyson traveled a lonely path, confronting armies of executives. "I cannot overstate the soul-destroying drudgery of sitting in a boardroom with all these specialists, each with his own little area in which to attack you."

After a deal with Amway collapsed, Dyson decided he'd manufacture the machine himself. He tested it to destruction, throwing it down iron staircases onto marble floors. By January 1993, his machines were ready for the consumer. Now all he had to do was sell them.

Predictably, big stores were nervous about the vacuum's high-tech design. But consumers liked the bright-yellow plastic and the machine's power. A bonus for allergy sufferers: It filtered the household air as it sucked up dirt. By 2005, Dyson dominated both the European and American markets.

Dyson insists he's not a businessman. His obsession has, however, made him rich. The company's revenue was nearly $1 billion last year. He and his artist wife, Deirdre, married happily for 40 years, live in a $35 million 18th-century mansion.

Even so, Dyson is just as driven today as when he made his cardboard prototype. "It is the fear of failure that makes me keep working at success," he says. "Having an idea for doing something better and making it happen-even though it appears impossible—those are still my dreams."

Getting Ahead with James Dyson

Q: You say fear of failure is your main driver. How can you be creative?

A: The fear of going bankrupt is a good motivator. It keeps the adrenaline running. I like living on the edge. Hope is really important too.

Q: What kept you going all those years—faith or madness?

A: Probably both. I had always assumed people succeeded only if they had the best of everything: the best idea, the best connections. But then I met Jeremy Fry, a British entrepreneur. If he thought it was a good idea, he pursued it. He didn't worry about what people thought. If that is what blind faith is, that is good.

Q: You've said that in business, entrepreneurs will be wrong 50 percent of the time. Is there any way to improve that percentage?

A: No. And it would be boring if you could. The whole thing is unpredictable, different from day to day. It is so important not to be put off by the fact that there are others who know more and who are more experienced. Experience doesn't really count for anything, because every day is day one. Which is why it's fun.

Q: Can anyone do what you did?

A: Everyone has ideas. They may be too busy or lack the confidence or technical ability to carry them out. But I want to carry them out. It is a matter of getting up and doing it.

Q: Do you ever get away from work?

A: I'm still a keen long-distance runner, having started in college. I spend as much time as I can with my three young grandchildren, and I still think one day I'll master the bassoon.

The last of the videos Plastics News (PN) shot at IDSA's national conference in Phoenix has just been posted in the Multimedia section of the newly redesigned PN web site. The 17-episode series covers topics ranging from China and sustainability to design education, as well as interviews with design officials from companies like Dell, Nike, HP, Navistar, Lenovo, Kor One and Crown Equipment. They're all worth a view. So is the new PN site which now offers full, free access to all viewers. You may want to watch the videos before you start sifting through PN's 15-year, 32,000-story print archives. Check the link below.

http://www.plasticsnews.com/multimedia/video.html

ps: IDSA is an abbreviation of Industrial Designers Society of America.

你可以说乔布斯是个完美主义者，也可以说他是偏执狂，cnn.com的一篇文章对他的评价很到位，“对于技术，或者股市，甚至是癌症，他都自作主张。这种性格即使他成为当今最伟大的CEO，也使他的公司冒了很大风险。”

国内关于斯蒂夫·乔布斯和他的苹果公司的传记不多。这本《撬开苹果》内容不算好，只能算一本乔布斯的粉丝书，作者利安德·卡尼是美国《连线》杂志的总编，是乔布斯的超级崇拜者。不过书中描述乔布斯是怎样孤注一掷地追求设计的这段故事，能够为这幅照片做详细的说明。

乔布斯十分注重电脑设计的每一个细节，包括电脑包装设计。事实上，乔布斯认为，在向消费者推介其“具有革命性”的计算机的过程中，第一批麦金塔电脑的包装是不可或缺的一部分。

在1984年，只有一些实验室的工作人员才见过像麦金塔这样的电脑；而且，只有资深工程师和电脑爱好者才使用个人电脑。早期的电脑以零部件的形式出售，需要使用者在工作台上对其进行焊接组装，它们可用于数学计算，使用者在光标处输入晦涩难懂的指令对电脑进行操作。

与此相反，乔布斯和麦金塔电脑的设计团队已经研发出了易于使用的电脑，这些电脑拥有生动的图像和简单的英语菜单，人们只需使用当时还比较陌生的点击设备——鼠标，就可完成操作。

为了帮助消费者熟悉鼠标和麦金塔电脑的其他部件，乔布斯认为，应当由购买者自己亲自从包装箱内取出电脑部件进行组装。通过组装电脑，用户将了解电脑的各个部件及电脑的工作原理。

该电脑的所有部件——主件、显示器、键盘、鼠标、电线、磁盘和使用说明书都是独立包装的。乔布斯和设计团队设计出了当时体积最小的包装箱，包装箱上印有黑白色的麦金塔电脑外形图以及“苹果”字样。那时候，乔布斯讲求“优雅”与“品味”，同时他的包装理念为科技行业引入了现在大家熟悉的“拆包装程序”。如今，从戴尔公司到手机制造商，每家公司都采用了这一令公司熟悉产品的做法。

苹果公司在设计产品包装时依然还使用最初的这些经验。

以下是埃弗(乔纳森·埃弗，现苹果公司主管设计的副总裁)在1999年就iMac的包装接受杂志采访时所说的话：

“我们包装设计的一项任务就是让产品把手成为打开包装箱时首先看到的部分。我们的理念是，顾客从包装箱中拿出第一块包装泡沫上摆放着使用说明书、键盘和其他附件；拿出第一块泡沫后，顾客就会看到产品的把手；看到把手后，自然知道接下来该做什么。把手拥有神奇的魔力：出现把手，顾客就知道它们是干什么用的。

从包装箱中拿出iMac后，顾客就能够将附件箱打开，就能清楚地知道下一步该做什么。附件箱内有一根电线，一根网线，还有一根键盘连接线。

听起来挺简单的，但是要达到这样简化的水平往往需要在设计过程中反复修改。花很多精力去了解使用中存在的问题以及人们的难题，虽然有时候人们很难用语言来表述这些问题与难题。”

这种对细节的关注看起来似乎有点疯狂。iPod推出市场前不久，插入和拔出耳机时耳机内没有出现令人满意的滴答声，这令乔布斯感到很失望。在产品展示会上，公司将几十台iPod样品送给了记者和贵宾。之后乔布斯命令一名工程师对所有这些设备做进一步改进，为它们设置能够产生令人满意的滴答声的新插孔。

还有一次，出于美学方面的考虑，乔布斯想重新设计第一代麦金塔电脑的主板。他认为，主板的有些部分“丑陋不堪”，他想改装主板，使芯片和电路的排列更加美观。自然，工程师们都感到非常惊讶。主板涉及非常复杂的技术。为了确保各组成部分之间坚固地连接在一起，它们的排列都是经过认真设计的；为了防止芯片松动，防止电荷从一个电路窜到另一个电路上，它们都是经过精细布置的。重新设计电路使它看起来更加美观绝非易事。当然，工程师们都表示了抗议，说绝对没有人会看到它的；更重要的是，从电子学的角度看，它们认为新的排列无法运作。但乔布斯坚持己见：“了不起的木匠是不会用糟糕的木头做柜子背面的，虽然没有人会去看它。”硬件工程师们非常不情愿地制作出了一个更加漂亮的主板，但是正如所预料的，新的主板根本无法运作，乔布斯这才不得不放弃了这个想法。

乔布斯对卓越的追求有时候会推迟产品的推出日期；为了追求完美他甚至愿意取消自己小组奋斗了多年的项目。但是他这种不愿妥协的精神确保了苹果公司产品决不会在没有完善之前便匆匆推向市场。

20世纪80年代初期，乔布斯住在一个基本没有家具的房子里，因为他无法忍受没有达到他认可的标准的家具。他睡在床垫上，床垫周围有几张巨幅照片。虽然他不会弹钢琴，但是非常欣赏一家德国琴商的设计和做工，于是买了一架巨大的德国钢琴。约翰·斯卡利(约翰·斯卡利，苹果公司的前任 CEO)拜访乔布斯的时候，简陋的房子让他感到震惊。那房子看起来像废弃了一般，特别是与周围装修完美的宫殿般的房子相比。“不好意思，我没有什么家具。 ”乔布斯向斯卡利解释说，“我只是没有时间去买家具。”

买东西对乔布斯来说是一件费神的事情。通常在购物时他无法决定到底买哪个。“结果我什么东西都没有买成。”当人们问他购买了什么新产品时，他就是这么回答的，“因为我发现它们实在是太荒唐、太滑稽了。”

乔布斯在购物时，整个过程非常费劲。为了寻找一台新的洗衣机，就选择哪个型号，乔布斯召集全家人进行了长达两个星期的讨论。乔布斯一家并不像其他大部分家庭一样匆匆看完产品介绍和价格后就仓促决定购买；相反，他们考虑的是到底要美国的产品还是要欧洲的产品，耗水量和清洁剂的用量、洗衣速度和对衣服的损耗等问题。

“我们家花了很长时间讨论到底想要购买哪种机器。最后，我们讨论了很多关于设计方面的问题。衣服洗涤时间是一小时还是一个半小时；洗完的衣服，质感是否更加柔顺并且寿命能否保持长久；洗衣是否只需用四分之一的水？每天吃晚饭的时候我们都会讨论这些问题，这样一直持续了两个星期。不知不觉我们就会转到洗衣机的讨论上，而且每一次谈话讨论的都是设计话题。”

最后，乔布斯决定购买德国产品，他认为德国产品虽然很贵，但洗衣过程中只需少量水和洗衣粉。“这些产品的制作真的是非常非常棒，这是过去这些年中我所购买的，令我们全家人都感到满意的少数几件产品之一。”乔布斯说，“这些人真的对整个洗衣过程进行了非常详细地观察。他们在洗衣机设计方面的工作做得相当细致。多年来我购买的所有高科技产品中，这次购买的产品最令我满意。”

这种关于购买洗衣机的长时间讨论看起来似乎有点极端，但乔布斯将同样的价值观(以及同样的过程)带到了苹果公司的产品开发中去。

Written by Cheng Y

软件技能对于工业设计师的作用已经无需多言，但众多的软件分类和各异的功能让学生们难以理解。基本上，根据软件的技术类型可以分为二维软件(2D)和三维软件(3D)；根据产品设计的通常流程，可以分为概念与造型软件(Concepts & Styling)、表现软件(Rendering)、工程设计软件(Engineering)。二维软件主要针对的是造型过程和表现过程，三维软件涵盖的过程则从概念、造型到工程等。

在最近美国西部华盛顿大学教授Jason A. Morris教授的一项调查中可以看出当前雇主们对于员工技能的期望要求。该项调查数据来自于美国工业设计师协会(IDEA)发布的招聘信息，统计时间从2007年3月至2008年10月。

从这份调查数据可以看出，对二维软件技能的需求明显超过了三维软件。（得到这样结果的部分原因是由工业设计的界定不够明晰造成的。）这说明在工业设计行业中，依赖于传统手绘技巧的工业设计方法依然是工业设计公司中重要的环节。同时也说明了即使在新产品需求量相对较高的美国，市场对工业设计的主要需求依然集中于外观设计领域。

在中国，这一现象就更为明显。由于中国目前的产品结构特点和独特的全球化地位，中国雇主对于工业设计师的要求主要是改形和配色。市场的需求决定了工业设计在中国不可能出现在以技术为主导的高校中。于是中国的工业设计专业多设立于艺术类院校并以艺术类生源为主，他们形成了中国国内的主流。

有一个有趣的现象是，独立工业设计师和作为雇员的工业设计师主要依赖的技能和设计方式有很大区别。独立工业设计师通常使用涵盖流程更为广泛的软件（功能更全面的软件）来完成设计任务，而作为雇员的工业设计师则主要按雇主要求使用工具，通常他们都是二维软件的主要使用者。我认为造成这一点的原因可能是独立工业设计师拥有对项目的更多的控制权，并常常一个人要负责更多或全部的设计流程环节，这促使他们使用功能更为全面的软件来完成任务。而作为雇员的设计师在组织中工作，承担的责任范畴较为狭窄，因此使用的工具也较为单一。目前还没有一项正式的对工业设计师的生态环境进行的研究，这应该是一个有意义的研究方向，有助于改善创新子环境。

以下是Morris的列表中所列软件对应的应用领域和相关链接，以供参考。

1. Illustrator 二维矢量插图软件 插图设计、网页设计、平面设计、二维效果图 www.adobe.com
2. Photoshop 二维图像处理软件 插图设计、图像处理、二维效果图 www.adobe.com
3. Solidworks 三维工程软件 产品设计、结构设计、工程分析 www.solidworks.com
4. Alias 三维造型软件 产品造型设计、三维效果图 www.autodesk.com
5. Pro/E 三维工程软件 结构设计 www.ptc.com
6. Rhinoceros 三维造型软件、三维效果图 www.rhino3d.com
7. MS Office 办公软件 www.microsoft.com
8. Alias Sketchbook 二维手绘软件 www.autodesk.com
9. Form Z 三维造型软件、三维效果图 www.formz.com
10. In Design 二维排版软件、杂志设计 www.adobe.com
11. Corel Painter 二维绘画软件 www.corel.com
12. 3ds Max 三维造型软件、三维效果图、三维动画 www.autodesk.com
13. Corel Draw 二维矢量软件 平面设计、二维效果图 www.corel.com
14. AutoCAD 三维CAD软件 建筑设计、工程设计 www.autocad.com
15. Inventor 三维工程软件 工程设计 www.autodesk.com
16. Strata 三维造型软件 产品造型、三维效果图 www.strata.com
17. Director 二维多媒体软件 多媒体编排 www.adobe.com
18. V-ray 三维渲染软件  三维效果图 www.chaosgroup.com
19. Unigraphix 三维工程软件 产品设计、结构设计、工程分析、辅助制造 www.ugs.com
20. Studio Vis 三维造型软件 建筑设计、三维效果图 www.autodesk.com
21. Sketch-up 三维造型软件 建筑设计 sketchup.google.com
22. I-deas 三维造型软件 曲面设计、产品设计、工程设计 www.ugs.com
23. Icem 三维造型软件 曲面设计、产品设计、工程设计 www.icem.com
24. Catia 三维工程软件 产品设计、结构设计、工程分析、辅助制造 www.catia.com

Origin written by Ken Bensinger (Times staff writer)
Translated by Cheng Yao

就在美国参议院没有通过帮助本国汽车制造商摆脱困境的法案的同一晚，位于帕萨迪那的Art Center College of Design的汽车设计专业毕业生的的毕业设计展依然像往年一样的在进行着。学生们着装整齐，站在他们漂亮的、精心制作的未来派汽车模型和三维的渲染图旁边。他们都拿着各自的简历，期望能够吸引汽车公司招聘人员的注意。但是没有他们期望的人来。Julius Bernardo 27岁，从儿童时代开始就梦想着能够设计漂亮的汽车。他已经为他的教育花费了10万美元。他说：“通常会有很多的从大公司来的设计师过来看，但现在这种情况下，就没人来了。在当前这种情况下，你不得不开始考虑其它工作的可能性。”

通常情况下，作为世界顶级的交通工具设计学校，Art Center的毕业设计展对于汽车制造商来说就像是一座金矿，他们来这里为各自的设计工作室储备人才，让这些天才为未来的汽车而工作。例如宝马（BMW）的首席设计师Chris Bangle和前阿斯顿·马丁（Aston Martin）设计师Henrik Fisker这样的传奇人物几乎刚走出校门就占据了汽车历史上的一席之地。但是在经历了过去25年最严重的销售下滑之后，整个行业都处在艰难之中。通用汽车（General Motors）和克莱斯勒（Chrysler）正在等待来自于布什政府的140亿美元的紧急援助，而福特（Ford）的境况只比这好一点。汽车制造商们正在绝望的削减预算，他们已经减少或暂停了招聘。处在整个裁减流程的顶端，产品计划和设计也受到了冲击，减薪和车展与办公室开销缩减也正在发生。通用汽车已经裁掉了研究与开发预算，福特也取消了新卡车设计的计划。克莱斯勒在08年3月关闭了位于加州Carlsbad的高级设计工作室，并将原有的约75名设计人员缩减至约60人。

“毫无疑问现在是困难时期，并且没有任何迹象表明在下一季会有好转。”Larry Erickson说。他是前通用汽车和福特汽车设计，现任位于底特律的College for Creative Studies交通设计系主任，该学院是与Art Center齐名的设计学院。学院一直一来都是三大汽车公司招聘的重要人员来源。Erickson说直到不久前，毕业班的一半学生本将去汽车制造商工作室工作，大约10到20人左右。但是在春季的毕业设计展上仅有一位学生找到汽车设计的工作。第二位找到工作的学生是去做自行车设计。其他人还在继续寻找或者做交通工具设计以外的其它设计。Mykola Kindratyshyn就是那位班上唯一找到汽车设计工作的学生。他是在回绝了丰田（Toyota）的工作邀请之后来到通用汽车的，他在这里设计凯迪拉克（Cadillacs）。他说：“在过去每个人都能找到工作。假如你不能在汽车公司找到工作也能够在供应商那找到工作。但现在再也不行了。”

以建筑和工程著名的Lawrence Technological University从去年设立了一个关于交通工具设计的专业。但二年级学生Jessica Cojeen说已经有6名学生部分因太差的工作预期而在第二年从班上退学了。她说：“我们都很紧张。”她的父亲在通用汽车做采购方面的工作。她的教授鼓励学生们发展汽车设计以外的其它技能，比如鞋类设计、服装设计和其它消费类产品的设计。“假如你不能从汽车制造商那里获得一份工作，你还可以获得一份设计轮子的工作。”她说。

在周四晚上Art Center的展览上，从西雅图来到南加州的学生Sean Whang展示了一辆他所想象的为一个日本动画角色特别设计的汽车模型，而随车展示的还有一个再设计的电吹风。虽然他12月的毕业班同学们都还对丰田（Toyota）和本田（Honda）抱有期望，但这两家公司的代表参加了展览但是没有提供任何工作机会。Whang把他的视线放在了三星电子公司，也许他可以在那里设计移动电话。他说：“我是按照汽车设计师那样来学习绘画和思考的，但是现在我准备将这些应用到消费类产品上去。”

Ralph Gilles，克莱斯勒公司的设计副总裁，回想起在他毕业前的一年1991年，当时缓慢的经济增长让很多毕业生找不到工作。但是他成功的在克莱斯勒找到一份工作。在此后不久公司就“疯狂的开始扩员”。Gilles以领导了克莱斯勒300的设计而闻名。他认为有志向的设计师不应该放弃希望。“这是一种循环。”他说。2008年，他失去了将近20％的设计师员工，仅仅雇佣了两名员工，这两名员工都是经验丰富的设计师而不是刚毕业的新手。他说：“在这种时期，我们非常小心。”

对于学生来说，一种选择是在学校里待久一点。Whang和其他Art Center的学生们说5个他们的同学选择了将毕业时间推迟了6个月，期望到五月底的时候整个行业境况会好一些。2008年秋天，College for Creative Studies将成为第一所提供交通工具设计硕士学位的美国学校，也许能吸引更多的设计师等待到变好的那一天。

虽然设计外观很酷，但是行业里其实短缺能够进行座位、前仪表板和汽车内部其它配件设计的设计师。Ricky Wong从香港来，并准备在8月份毕业。他目前在Fisker Automotive实习，帮助设计Karma（一种2009即将上市，价值$87,000的混合动力车。）的内饰。Wong说：“经济状况现在不好，因此我开始关注内饰设计。这是现在比较热门的方向。”

Eric Noble在他作为汽车工业顾问的工作之余在Art Center教书。他说他和其他的教员们已经开始鼓励学生们扩展他们的作品类型，要多样化。“现在很难，”他说，“我们训练出来比行业需求要多得多的设计师。”

Due to my different browsers (Firefox English version & Maxthon Chinese Version), I got two experiences of visiting Microsoft Live service page. I’m sure there are more versions for users in other languages.

en version (some kind of european style, I’m not sure it’s for British users or all English language users)

cn version (Chinese New Year Style)

Google终于也步Microsoft Windows Live后尘，走上了全面“主题化”的道路。Gmail Theme实际上是iGoogle个性化内容的扩展，但这一行动显示了Google对其产品的未来定向。“将个性化进行到底”，可以确信的是Google绝对有能力把产品做到面向顾客需求最优化，但值得怀疑的是Google能够做多快？在目前市场上各种新兴力量此起彼伏的状态下，Google能否有效地去和更小型、更灵活、更专业、更有创新思维和更有激情的公司进行顾客满意度竞争呢？

到目前为止，可以清楚地看到Google是依靠其后台庞大的数据处理和计算能力来提供服务，其产品大都基于这一平台之上，即使在对产品的开发过程中，Google也在充分的应用大量的后台信息数据作为决定产品成功与否和支撑开发的工具。这一方式与传统过程中的从市场调查到分析数据的决策方式本质上并无不同，Google仅仅是大幅提升了其数据获取效率。然而这种传统方式已经在各种场合中被证明是不适宜的。在这一典型过程中，获取的数据准确性是整个系统能否成功运作的前提。然而在“行为”转换“数据”的过程中，数据的有效性大大下降，这是当前量化方法的缺陷。当然这种方法之所以被长久运用，也是有其有效的一面。在改进型产品的开发过程中，这种基于测试调查数据的分析方法能够有效获得产品改进信息，这是毋庸置疑的。但是在创新型产品的开发过程中，这种方法的有效性会大打折扣，用户甚至自己也不知道他想要获得什么，或是能获得什么。用户只能够提供他熟悉或有认识度的观点和见解。因此，这也是各种创新型公司在成功和内部结构流程日益完善之后，反而失去了创新能力的原因。但是Google还有一项优势，即资金，和微软一样，在适当的时候，它能够迅速通过采购创新型小企业来补充自己创新的不足，Google的Picasa和Earth都是这样的例子。

如果对持续性创新感兴趣，可以关注和Disney动画部门合并的大名鼎鼎的Pixar动画工作室，他们是持续型创新领域的典型范例，推出过多部成功的CG动画电影，涉及类型又都大相径庭。他们成功的原因是收购人才。

Can you figure out what’s in this picture on your first eye sight contact?

A vase with a strange little pink ball? Or a trumpet standing on some kind of basement?

No. It’s a flashlight I designed last week. Motivated by the eager for pure living product, I draw some concepts on simple, smooth and funny things. Once you see it, some feeling will rise in your heart though everybody has their own life experience. It’s so pure that there’s nothing to see but the body curve and the little ball. That’s enough for the eyes to catch. Time is left to you for feeling and rethinking.

The flashlight consists of three parts - the body, the ball and the base. The ball is actually a button for switch and light control. The base offers the product standing capability and wireless recharging function.

The registration of the patent is on the way.