Do designers only look at the front of products?

A statement to tickle some designers. Would it be fare to say most designers tend to neglect the back of products? Yes, this is a generalization that won’t hold ground for all products / cases. But consider all the products in your house that have a bad design from an ‘interaction’ perspective.

Take for instance televsions, video recorders, dvd players and all other products that have some form of connectivity. Another example, the back of your desktop computer, why is it impossible for housewives and elderly to install their computer without having to read the manual? See also an analysis of the [u]usability of hifi equipment[/u]

I would say a few designers might not consider the back of a product as much, or its secondary to the primary design. it depends on the constraints the project would have on it.

Most AV equipment has a reasonably good grouped layout of connections at the rear though. But yes most traditional PC’s are quite crude in their layout.

In my post (here) about the usability of hifi equipment I also concluded that most AV receivers group their connections, but is it usable? I still don’t understand why they don’t use icons for instance to communicate that these connections are for ‘speakers’ or ‘dvd’s’

I think a real “designed” piece of hi fi equipement for consumers would use connectors designed to be fitted into only one specific place. Therefore, speakers might have a different connector than inputs, moreover, each speaker connection might be color coded. There are at least 10 easily differentiated colors, why not assign them to one wire only? (blue, yellow the right speaker, red, green the left speaker).

I just hooked up my stereo again yesterday and had to check several times which speaker was which. It’s a pain. Plus, I hate those connectors they use with speakers. I get it, I can use the length of wire I need, but they don’t work well.

I would say that Apple designs the back of their products…Also, my Compaq PC isn’t bad. Although I don’t know if it was a designer, the inside of the box is very logical. They included all the extra screws one needs to install extra HDs or CD drives. Also, they made the whole front clip on, rather than screws. It’s pretty slick…for a PC.

Dead on. The connectors should be designed in such a way that there is only one way to connect everything together.

I have similar experiences about installing hifi equipment, it always takes some time to just get it right.

Imagine what mess will be there…inside of that box… :unamused:

Why they don’t develop wireless one…
Just keep the product in vicinity…they will talk to each other
…will let you know …whether they are compatible or not
… will get connected to each other.
… is it possible by any percentage…?
Just thought…

small suggestion for present product …provide small… small boxes on similar sockets & explanatory diagram outside…open the box …enjoy the treasure.

But most of them used by professional…. generally they know where to connect what…so will they require detailed explanation?

what way it can be simplified…any ideas?

niels from Delft: Thanks for sharing blog…

If you take a look at the back of computers from a decade ago I think you’ll see a good bit of usability design has gone in where it could.

Connectors now are designed to only go in one way or not at all. Common connections like video, keyboard/mouse (that aren’t USB) were color coded that green/purple which was a standard among most manufacturers - at least until everything became USB. The same problem has come up now where you might have 8 USB devices that all have the same cable.

Most computer manufacturers though wiill include a diagram showing how to set up the computer for the first time. I agree it’s probably not elderly friendly, but I guess thats why elderly people have kids – to do the work for them. :laughing:

Wireless is a dead herring. You need power to drive something like speakers. You can’t send that wirelessly. So then, you either need 5-6 AC/DC adapters spread out across the room, or wire them direct to the receiver.

Don’t you agree that the mere facts that manufacturers need a diagram to explain how their products is working is a sign of bad usability design? I think the same goes for using the kids, many don’t have kids, or their kids don’t have time. And the product should be designed in such a way that every fool should be able to install it.

What is this “back of products”?

Front only, we live in a 2d world

I tend to disagree, I would say that 90 percent of our products are still 3D. Even touchscreens have to be connected, just like monitors, computers, you have to open your cell phone etc.

pardon the heavy sarcasm above, my friend

I’m merely poking fun at the idea. any designer who isn’t thinking ‘in the round’ isn’t doing much good. inside, underside, outside, negative space around it, front, back, 3/4 angle- it should all be designed.

I was just sketching up some solutions to all of that wiring madness on the back of that receiver – there are more than a few creative and realistic ways to improve on this

Sorry buddy, I thought you were serious, haha!

If, as a designer, you don’t think in the round, doesn’t that make you a Graphic Designer? Just kidding to all the GD’s.

Do you think that the rear of AV equipment may be laid out partially to set the user up for that feeling of expertise? Similar to the BMWs a few years back, you would need to read a huge manual in order to use the thing, but once you do you can do something few other can do. I remember talking about that phenomena in class.

I think the budget gets blown on the front of these products, and the back becomes a cost savings exercise: how to make it as functional and cheap as possible.

Look around your car interior and you will see where the money is spent, generally above the waist and toward the front… then check out how cheap some of the ceiling materials are, or the lower portions of the doors.

Costing.

I think the budget gets blown on the front of these products, and the back becomes a cost savings exercise: how to make it as functional and cheap as possible.

I’d agree… when design budget is constrained (most of the time?) why waste design time on a back panel that the user will interact with once every-other year? Make it as user friendly as possible, and make the everyday experience the best it can be.

If the back of the product is interacted with frequently, unlike examples in this thread (computer, A/V) then it should be given weight. Some laptop manufacturers are starting to understand this, where the ports are used much more than on a desktop- magsafe for example.


Connectors now are designed to only go in one way or not at all. Common connections like video, keyboard/mouse (that aren’t USB) were color coded that green/purple which was a standard among most manufacturers - at least until everything became USB. The same problem has come up now where you might have 8 USB devices that all have the same cable.

I remember the days before USB too… Keyboard and Mice both used PS/2 serial connectors, but could not be swapped. I’d argue that have 8 USB devices that can be plugged in any way is better than 8 different plugs for 8 different holes?

On the A/V nerd tangent…
Imagine an A/V receiver with 20 Universal connectors where the device is smart enough to know what is a speaker and what is a TV, I could hook it up blindly!
DVI and now HDMI try to streamline connections by combining audio and video into one connector which is even better than serperate, but universal/interchangable connectors.

regarding audio equipment, back panel connector bank is dictated by connectivity: to ensure your equipment is usable with the majority of other equipment all standard connectors are usuallly provided. Audio equipment manufacturers that have attempted different suffer for it tremendously in public bashing and poor sales. For high end audio equipment the back panels often cost more than the overly designed front as the connectors used, and internal routing components, are extremely expensive. For lower end audio the back panels always cost more than the front for same reason.

It is similar scenario with most other electronic equipment, consumer electronics to medical, laboratory and portables. The back panels are laid out usually with very plain, rectilinear groupings, single color identification for several main reasons:

  • its usually meant to be connected once, permanently.
  • electrical compliance issues: routing of signal to outside connectors is the most susceptible to electrical interference.
  • within specific industry or market segment electronic equipment often has standard wording and icons to identify electrical and pneumatic connections.

Its always a battle to demand attention to this area. Usually what I’ve seen is equipment with connectors sprayed haphazardly around the back and sides, and in big companies each one is the purview of an electrical engineer: imagine reaction when some designer asks “is this connector even required”. To discuss panels’ connectorization and their UI improvements will involve nemerous meetings. I have a standard speech memorized on the benefit of an I/O panel (input/output) colocating all connections. In all cases I have experienced, upon seeing design concepts showing improved connectorization and markings, its an easy sell.

Attention young designers: want to have some fun? If you are working on some flavor of electronic equipment show a design concept with power switch on the front panel! Observe the electrical engineers reactions!

I researched pricing of some of those speaker connectors a while ago. Darn expensive little things. I totally understand the price-related reasoning behind them.

Also, spot on about interoperability of components between makes. I hadn’t thought of that really. It will take an industry initiative to change things I guess.

I do agree. And for those people, they invented the Imac. :laughing: