From Voice ~ Topics: advertising, branding/identity

The New Shape of Chocolate: Mobile

Down the road graphics” is a phrase that automobile designers use. The phrase refers to a body shape that “reads” to the observer’s eye as clearly as a logo on a page, a line of roof, or a fender that says “Ford” as boldly as an oval logo or Chevrolet as indisputably as its bowtie. Other product designers aspire to the clarity of graphic designers: they want their coffeemakers or computers to become “typeforms,” shapes that stand for their categories, as cartoons or logos, like airport graphics. The shape of the Apple iPod, for instance, is almost identical to its face. It reads in the hand like a 2-D design.

Now, designers of the most ubiquitous personal device are showing the same aspiration. Cellphone makers want “in the hand graphics,” shapes that show personality and separate them from generic phones. Instead of numbers—Motorola 88 or Nokia 8800—phone companies are marketing, as well as shaping, phones as electronic characters.

From the gilded and jeweled phones of Nokia’s luxury “Vertu” line to the simple models every bus boy now seems to have, graphics are helping lend model distinction and brand character as distinct as corny ring tones. Vertu not only offers gold and diamonds, but special editions, such as a limited edition with tire tread like Shell dedicated to famous auto racing tracks.

Auditory styling is sure to follow. “Earcons” like Motorola’s “moto” match icons in such vowel-challenged brand names as “Razr,” “Pebl,” and “Slvr.”

The earcon idea is not new: think of the NBC or BBC chimes, or AOL or Windows start-up tones. But there is something new in Nokia hiring the Finnish avant-garde musician Ryuichi Sakamoto to compose ring tones for the 8800 series.

Not long ago, Verizon launched a campaign for the LG “Chocolate” model, which resembles a candy bar and is shown wrapped in metal foil. “It’s totally sweet,” is the slogan, and the technical pitch is a wheel-like interface similar to that on an iPod. “Chocolate” is a sweeter name, too, than LG VX8500.

The same week Verizon rolled out the Chocolate, this word came from Iraq, via the New York Times, about customers who were doing the naming work for companies on their own. August 7: “The cool kids in Iraq all want an Apache, the cellphone they’ve named after an American military helicopter. Next on the scale of hipness comes a Humvee, followed by the Afendi, a Turkish word for dapper, and a sturdy, rounded Nokia known as the Allawi—a reference to the stocky former prime minister, Ayad Allawi.”

Most Americans are at least vaguely aware that European and Asian models are smaller and more stylish than most of the ones sold for the crude American network. Mark Newson’s design, the Talby, available in Japan only, is a rumor of what we wish we had here; consider similar objects of envy such as the Penck or Neon.

But there are not really many proven basic shapes for phones: the candy bar is one; the clam shell, another. It is as old as the Motorola StarTAK, once, say a dozen years ago, the only phone to own. Today we have the slider form, while more novel arrangements fail to catch on. Despite many design awards and its inclusion the goody bag of freebies for the Academy Awards in 2002, the Motorola V70 never quite took off. It is easy enough to lay on graphics, as easy as new screen images or ringtones. So we get the limited-edition Versace Versus or Dolce & Gabbana models.

More and more phones are seeking radically different, eye-catching shapes. The Serene, an expensive, Europe-only model offered jointly by Samsung and Bang & Olafsen opens up like a woman’s cosmetic compact to reveal a wheel-like control. David Lewis, the venerable B&O designer, devised turn-and-push wheel controls years ago, and deployed them in B&O desktop phones and such stereo units as the current BeoSound 3. Simply decorating a basic shape no longer seems enough.


About the Author: Phil Patton is the author of Dreamland: Inside the Secret World of Roswell and Area 51, Made in USA, Open Road and other books. He writes regularly for the "Design Notebook," "Public Eye," and automotive columns of The New York Times and is a contributing editor of ID Magazine, Wired, and Esquire, for which he writes on design and automobiles. More can be found at http://www.philpatton.com.

  1. link to this comment by Scott Bower Thu Sep 28, 2006

    I guess I am having a hard time determining the goal of this article. What does "graphic design" have to do with product develpoment and Industrial Design? Are you not really saying "design thinking"?

    This article really gets at the heart of the failure of Graphic Designers to understand that the business world is leaving them behind. I would call everything in this article interaction design practices (this is not a job title) because that involves developing products that work vertically in business models, as well, as, horizontally across disciplines. That involves brand, stakeholders, and UCD practices.

    If you visit Motorola R+D you will find designers that are actively engaged in the business discourse, wihout silos. The "graphic designers" in some of these environments are left theming software applications, often with their headphones on, smirking at management and the limitations. Why do you think all the good jobs these days mention that they want designers with degrees in HCI, Psychology, or Anthropology?

    Teams need creative thinkers that play well in teams. Simply decorating things with photoshop no longer seems to be enough.

  2. link to this comment by William Golden Wilkins Thu Sep 28, 2006

    What I like about this article is that it raises the awareness among graphics designers of the importance of other design disciplines, and takes us into a direct discussion of industrial design (which by the way, I also practice). In that this makes a step towards breaking down the unneccessary and counterproductive barriers that have been erected between the different design disciplines, I applaud this article.

    My one major gripe with the article is the statement: Most Americans are at least vaguely aware that European and Asian models are smaller and more stylish than most of the ones sold for the crude American network." I don't dispute that the Asian market benefits from better cellphone availibility (Europe is another story), but I do have a problem with the 5 major US cellphone networks being referred to, collectively, as the "crude American network."

    Two of the major US networks, including the largest one, use GSM, the global standard, while the CDMA and WiDEN networks used elsewhere, though offering slower data rates, are extremely competent for voice traffic, in particular push-to-talk service (which is not nearly as widely availible in other parts of the world). The US has an extremely competent cellphone systsem, so my big gripe with that part of the article is it seemed to be a lethargic bit the of "Oh it's American so it must suck" style of writing (also popular in the car design world).

    In response to Scott Bower's post, I welcome this article, and I also welcome the fact that graphic designers are increasingly becoming "interaction designers", a field in which we will be joined by our colleagues in industrial design. Most good graphics designers understand that our work is not simply about making "sexy" images in Photoshop (or Illustrator or InDesign), but rather about efficiently communicating information.

  3. link to this comment by Joe Moran Thu Sep 28, 2006

    I still hate cell phones for two reasons.

    1. Can't hold them on your shoulder and do stuff with your hands very well.

    2. Sound quality is poorly lacking.

    A lot is going on in this phone design area to make them slimmer, cuter, e-mail friendly, video friendly, etc. -- at the great expense of sound quality (due to the excitement of "instant gratification" I assume).

    Cellular phones are hard to communicate with.

    The thing I don't understand is that people gave up clarity of sound for the convenience of being able to call from the bathroom or grocery store. Can't the phone call wait?

    Lot's of progress was made with real phone lines and fiber optics for so long. I could hear water running in the background, TVs playing, etc. I actually had to tell people I couldn't hear them because I could hear the background noise so loudly. Now -- I just can't hear them.

    It makes no sense -- to me -- to give up sound quality. That's why we're calling in the first place, right? To communicate?

    When the "crude" phone companies figure out how to get clear sound again, I'll get another cell phone.

    Until then, I can wait the few minutes or hours to make a phone call from a land line. Where I can actually communicate without all the "fuzz."

    It's setting a bad precedence for us all.

    Respectfully,

  4. link to this comment by Joe Pemberton Fri Sep 29, 2006

    Mr. Patton,

    You do a good job of raising an interesting state of awareness in the mobile industry: that mobile companies are waking up to the fact that mobile phones are as much a personal statement as ones shoes, ones jacket or ones car (maybe). (Or maybe it's US consumers who are waking up to a new form of fashion accessory.) And your piece is also an interesting discussion in naming and visual branding.

    However, I'm a little disappointed that this article doesn't touch on the iconic nature of the user interaction of these devices. The iPod interaction, for example, is as simple as its interface. The side-scrolling behavior is simple and iconic in the same way the clickwheel is. Contrast that with the lousy interaction of the RAZR user interface and you have an interesting discussion about how interaction design and visual design can make a device come to life. Or how at least, the interaction can live up to the coolness of the form factor (sleek and pink, but a cumbersome device to use).

    The iPod is successful, not only because of its form in the hand and its immediately recognizable shape, but also because the user interaction also delivers the same promise of iconic simplicity and singleness of purpose. (The iPod does one thing very well.)

    Contrast that with the state of the mobile UI. In general, mobile phones have dozens of features that users aren't aware of. If they are aware of "advanced" features they don't use them because they are cumbersome. Contrast the simple UI of the iPod with most mobile phones -- cluttered, ugly 3D icons, awkward and sometimes pointless animations, offensively insensitive use of fonts that were designed for print or worse, fonts that were built by engineers.

    Anyway, when we're done talking about the form factor, it would be great to talk about the interfaces that we can as graphic, nay, interaction designers can, and are affecting.

    Regards,

    Joe Pemberton
    Punchcut

  5. link to this comment by Andrew Mon Oct 02, 2006

    To follow up what Joe Pemberton writes above, people might want to track down David Pogue's eviscerating NYT review of Chocolate that includes statements like:

    "Whenever I review a product this badly designed, I just stare at the ceiling and try to imagine how it could possibly have gotten out the door. Haven’t successes like the iPod and the Treo taught the marketers anything about making things work simply and well?"

    Who gives a damn about the shape and "in the hand" feel of a product if its primary functions--making a call, sending a text message--are exercises in frustration? Designers obsessing over "radically different, eye-catching shapes" is *exactly the problem*. We don't need reviews like this that legitimize such superficial design practices.

  6. link to this comment by Andrew Mon Oct 02, 2006

    To follow up what Joe Pemberton writes above, people might want to track down David Pogue's eviscerating NYT review of Chocolate that includes statements like:

    "Whenever I review a product this badly designed, I just stare at the ceiling and try to imagine how it could possibly have gotten out the door. Haven’t successes like the iPod and the Treo taught the marketers anything about making things work simply and well?"

    Who gives a damn about the shape and "in the hand" feel of a product if its primary functions--making a call, sending a text message--are exercises in frustration? Designers obsessing over "radically different, eye-catching shapes" is *exactly the problem*. We don't need reviews like this that legitimize such superficial design practices.

  7. link to this comment by William Golden Wilkins Tue Oct 03, 2006

    You know what I think the problem is - we've basically, in the past 3 years, transitioned from a period in which mobile phone design was embryonic in terms of the phone body and nonexistant in terms of the OS (as a result of the limitations of the original monochrome LCD displays) , and as a result, while the industrial design of the phones has improved immensely, there just haven't yet been the resources availible to improve the interface design.

    Now that phones do look great on the outside (and are also improving in terms of ergonomics), the emphasis will start to shift to improving the UI.

    I disagree vehemently with Andrew, however, in his assertion that industrial design oriented towards visible exterior differentiation is "superficial." The shape and in the hand feel of a product are critical from the standpoint of ergonomics and human factors engineering.

    It strikes me as odd to demand an increased focus on intuitive UI design while at the same time attempting to discredit the other side of the usability coin, ergonomics.

  8. link to this comment by Phil Patton Tue Oct 03, 2006

    Thanks for all the comments.


    I surely think all the disciplines need to work together and be invidiually valued---3D, graphic, interaction, whatever artificial but often necessary barriers we put up.


    It is interesting to me that 3d designers speak of the "readable' component of their shapes as the "graphic" of the thing--they are aware of the boundaries blurring.

    By not talking more about interface specifics I do not mean to neglect it---the opposite in fact. Most interfaces on these devices still seem crude and frustrating.

    I want devices that have both friendly interface and friendly personality.


    As for my crit of our national phone network it is a matter of delivery as well as standards. I am constantly amazed at how poor signals are all over the U.S. I have dealt with great gaps and dropouts (and I've had three or four suppliers) in NYC and DC just to chose examples from my own experience. In Berlin, you can get a call in the subway, (mixed blessing perhaps) while the effort to set up such a think in NYC seems to have come to grief over cost and politics.

    My key point, watching people deal with these phones, is that they have become so critical to our lives they necessarily reflect our personalities and therefore NEED personalities. It happened with cars, it happened with, heck, running shoes.

    The "user" attaches personality to the object; the designer needs to be aware of that fact and shape and deal with it.

    to be continued.....

  9. link to this comment by Joe Pemberton Wed Oct 04, 2006

    This has sparked a good discussion. I'm waiting for the day when I see wireless ads talking about benefits, features and ease of use, instead of just minutes and network coverage. That's when we'll know that the industry has matured. (Helio is already doing that, but they're tiny compared to the big 5 US carriers.)

    William Wilkins, I would answer that the carriers are making their custom UI tools available, with mild adoption. Flash Lite (Flash for mobile) and uiOne (Qualcomm's next gen UI markup language) are being adopted by the major US carriers. The tools are there, the carriers are moving in that direction, but you're right that this next gen stuff is not yet at your local Best Buy.

    To be continued indeed! The fun is just getting started. =)

  10. link to this comment by phil patton Tue Oct 17, 2006

    One more thought: I just came across a story from Fast Company (April, 2006) about Motorola design.

    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/104/moto.html

    The key point is that Motorla designed its phones for instant recognizability.

    ". . .the late Geoffrey Frost, a former Nike whiz who later became Motorola's chief of marketing . . .created the four-letter names and high-profile campaigns that help make Moto's phones memorable. Around the same time, Wicks and his team arrived at some core principles--surprise, honesty, richness, and simplicity--to better define what makes a handset unique to Motorola. There are unwritten guidelines as well, such as the "three-meter rule": With so many competing models littering the landscape, Motorola wants its devices to be identifiable by shape, finish, and lighting--from 10 feet away. "

    Across the room graphic you might call this idea--the equivalent of the automotive down the road graphic I referred to.

  11. link to this comment by Jay Larche Fri Mar 23, 2007

    I believe if anything, overall, this article questions the idea of our modern society and how americans think as consumers. I think the revolution that has taken place recently in the world of cell phones is an indirect dependence of a consumers' needs. Here, in America, more than anywhere else, we are driven by our need for personality and distinction. So much to which we will consume products based on how we will be perceived by others more over than the effectiveness of any certain product. The thing i find most interesting in the recent drive in personality of cellular telephones is that it proves that there still actually remains a number of "untapped" sources in the design realm. Never before have people (Designers, product developers, advertisers, etc.) come together to create an industry boom in similarity to the recent on in the cell phone industry. Whether that is good or bad, is another question. Is our competitive culture so desperate to differentiate consumers by all means, so far as to all the way down to the device we hold up to our ear for, what now seems, a majority of our day?

Add a Comment

AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work.
Read our policy on commenting.