Industrial design board exam

insurance is not a precautionary measure for better standards but rather covering the archs/engs in case they screw up just like medicine and engineering. the only thing they might be able to do is to promote the culture for better standards ie not insuring those who continously fail as archs or engs. same as medicine, if a doctor has malpractice or few too many mistakes he won’t get insured anymore and his license will be revoked. he might even go to jail.

yeah in toronto.

i think he meant the 117.

as for hamlet, i think he’s not refering to work itself but the interpretation of it, just like i’ve heard many different interpretations and performances of mozart concertos. in that sense a modern version of the piece which is not played with period instruments and taste might differ to a great extent. everybody has their onw idea of how mozart wanted a certain instrument like violin or piano sound. some like to give it the soft sound attribute while others kinda deeper, more carved out sound, and still others light and spirited.

same with hamlet. i’m sure mozart was aware of shakespeare, not that it relates to this subject matter but one can also speculate in that avantgarde level where composers and writers find a common space they consider intriguing to experiment with and the effect continues into modern times.

therefore not only the original performance becomes the focal point but also all other instances of it.

i think he’s refering to that idea.

read [8]

also did you know that in certain cities in europe they have aestetic review for buildings? if some architect designs a building that is ugly according to their standards the city won’t give permit for it even if everything is done in correct code and building standards.

I am not necessarily for or against it. I guess I’ll vote for ‘core members’ and see how it goes. (try it on a small scale before going big).

Well Bryan, you say that industrial design is ARTISTIC ( I say it’s INDUSTRIAL DESIGN :wink: ), Artists do Artistic stuff., Designers do design.
As for what could go on artistic side of the exam:

Art history
Colours and understanding of psychology of colour/form
understanding of Shape
Evoking emotions
Morality of visual communication.

What are your thoughts?

i think he’s referring to 117 too. and its a slow fighter. slowest fighter we have i think. subsonic. so what he says is grounded in error. if it’s the B-2, which is fast and beautiful, that design dates back to WWII. bit old for paradigm revelation.

just as well. sounds like he’s arguing that its okay for a fast car to be ugly. he talking about BMW’s? w/out context, that quote sounds bad for BMW!

i think Hamlet comment is just poor analogy. very poor. someone see’s old design they recognize an old design. old style. or way of doing things. beauty of Hamlet is that there is no “old”. its transcendent. retro is exact opposite. it uses that bygone association. at very least his comment is confusing. maybe thats why designers should stick to communicating visually.

bigger point. if there was to be an Exam is this person qualified to make decision what should be on it? how it works? is Stark? is Graves? who? and why them? not opposed to idea. but it should done carefully/correctly or not at all imo.

F117 is rather ugly. B2 is beautiful, except for the squared off trailing edge of the wings. That’s a bit odd.

I’d love to see the “history” section of this ID exam. I’ve spoken to professionals who are great designers, but who have no clue who Gerrit Rietveld is. I don’t think that history, in terms of something testable (names, dates, places) is anything that is truly practical.

UFO: Do I understand you right…there would be different tests for various members of the ID community…that would work better than one single test.


Out of curiosity what benefit would our field derive from having exams to gain entry in the field?

If we created exams like this back in the early 80’s would Ideo, Frog, Ziba, Et al have grown past their strict product design roots and developed into the multi-disciplinary strategic design firms that they are now? probably not.

If we had a system analagous to the architectural review boards would styles to to homogenize and become repetitive or at least bent to the liking of the board members? That’s what has happened with cities that have strict reviews.

These threads always strike me as being overly protectionist, and demonstrate a real lack of professional self esteem. If your a good designer you will succeed. The market will seperate the good from the bad, messily as it always does. Adding layers of impotent hierarchy will lead to no concrete benefits for designers.

While sometimes I think it would be nice if there was something that separated true ID’ers from interior designers or the fakes that are all over TV, IMO, a professional exam would be a bad idea for the ID profession.

One aspect that I think is great about ID is that there is no perfect process, and very little that can only be done one way. Great things come from thinking differently than others, and having some type of standardized exam would require that everyone learn to do things, and think, in a similar way. Any ID’er worth the air they breathe should take it upon themselves to be as proficient as possible just on the principle of it; anyone who doesn’t care or puts little effort into ID deserve what they get (most likely fired and/or unable to get hired).

no i think your line of logic is more than just submerged in constant error. the 117 was the “root” stealth design which has led lockheed to develop f-22. i don’t know if you’re aware of the fact that f-22 has been comissioned to compete with russian SU’s. f-22 is the direct stealth result of the 117 design. here are some links

for better understanding of f-22 design and how it relates to f-117 i recommend you contact lockheed to make sure you understand the history and intent on design.

he’s not argueing about ugliness vs prettiness because it’s not even auto industry he’s talking about, he’s argueing in general- what he’s saying is:

what most people concieve to be true about design and design related issues will end up changing as technology progresses and that affects design to an extent that surprises some intitial belief.

and about hamlet comment.
why don’t you read my post again. he’s talking about new interpretations of hamlet. as time progresses people’s view about world change, philosophies change and at any particular moment people reflect based on their new understanding of the piece therefore contributing to its fruitation as a masterpiece.

same with retro. if some designer designs a car based on a previously successful design like the mini or the ford GT he’s trying to contribute the best he can to the new understanding of technology as it relates to the original piece hence a modern retrospective. the word itself is self explanatory. bangle just extended it to literature instead of just staying in the design zone.

i don’t think anyone could force the idea that designers should put a band tape on their mouth. that’s really absurd and as far as i recall from history of design most designers are very outspoken and assertive when it comes to talking about design. just to lay back and say nothing is kind of an abnormality in this field.

if by decision you mean being in a commitee or a board of designers choosing the criterias and categories for design, and tayloring questions for aptitude and proficiency yeah i think he’s qualified. i think the board or committe should choose the people they feel are most sincere about their profession and their approach to a design problem.

i didn’t mention anything about history but if it gets enough votes from people why not. the worse that can happen is someone failing that section and getting a lower grade.

as for the structure of exam i think there should be different tests including all aspects of design but those with furniture,auto, or consumer electronics will take speciallized test that will emphasize their side of the bargain. the rest will be categorized as general design, a jack of all trades test. the individual could take both test either at once or on seperate occasions, or not at all. it’s up to him. of course the industry will be happy with what siuts its purpose. so a person who has taken the specialized test and passed it will have better aptitude and proficiency in that field.

i think the committe eventually will give the license with a description of the person’s professional expertise and respective field if the test is taken for that criteria. like industrial designer + automobile designer or just industrial designer.

i don’t think that a certificate will stop companies from developing into multi disciplinary units. excuse me but that’s just plain nonsense.

i don’t think that architecture is now repetative and boring. actually on the contrary everyday we see more emphasis on creative ideas in architecture even in cities that have strict aestethic regulations. i don’t think paris is an ugly city. do you?

protectionism is a different issue. we’re not here to protect design from designers. we’re interseted in creating a professional atmosphere where people have a clue about what’s the standard and what’s just fake and questionable.

i don’t think the exams are gonna be that detail oriented where they scrutinize the design integrity of a project for the sake of some absolute precision in processing and procedure. actually reverse. the judges should give points for creative ideas and how the candidate has a different individual approach that works and is exceptionally well thought of. individualism and originality will definitely get a high score and is on top of the list. because design is a creative profession and all successfull designs carry creative and revolutionary elements.

proficiency is the base requirement for passing the test.

that’s what makes this test both fun and enjoyable fro those who are proficient and it sets it apart from other test like the engineer’s, lawyers and doctors board exams.

Look man you totally nailed me saying something that kind of contradicts my normal sermon, on the art vs. design debate, i didn’t intend to open up that debate on this thread, i have a crazy feeling that we have pretty similar feelings about it though :wink: :wink:

i was rushed in my reply and couldn’t articulate quick enough what i wanted to say and i slipped and used the A-word


problem i (we?) have w your posts is personal attacks. i dont insult YOU in my posts in this thread. but you need to insult me: “no i think your line of logic is more than just submerged in constant error.” you could have said, “I think you’re mistaken.” you took it beyond. suggest that in every post my logic is flawed. why? why need to get personal like this? i’m asking. (and still asking you to show your work)

to your comments:

1 - i disagree. your links tell nothing didnt know. and you skew information. F-22 comes from both 117 and B-2. you omit that. padding defense of someone you obviously admire. first link quaility shown by this comment:

you can’t have both stealth and maneuverability.

incorrect. stealth is achieved thru combinations of technology (is Bangle an expert on them all? or just observing visual parts of stealth?) odd geometries (like forward swept wings) inherently unstable. Cm-alpha curves goes negative. highly positive Cm-alpha is airliner. most fighters barely positive. some go negative. the more negative, more manueverable. common sense. every aero knows this curve. the B-2 is unstable. pretty sure it only flies w computers. read the history of the shape. the F-117 is reportedly very manueverable (never seen a Cm-alpha for it). all this goes against the expert account in your first link. “”? might find something sounds at least reputable.

your second not much better. it however mentions F-22 lineage:

Its stealth characteristics which descend from the success of the F-117 stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber provide invisibility against most radars and sensors.

this got me laughing:

"what he’s saying is:

what most people concieve to be true about design and design related issues will end up changing as technology progresses and that affects design to an extent that surprises some intitial belief."

personal interpretation? i dont know what he meant. why dont you post link to entire source interview? let us determine for ourselves. this ends my discussion on stealth a/c development.

2 - wont continue Hamlet discussion. someone else can try to explain it to you. think its over your head tbh.

“i think he’s qualified.”

i dont know. but these quotes dont sell me. and having him on the advisory board would now concern me.

Just to back the truck up a moment, the f-117 isn’t the fastest plane. It is the most invisible to radar.

I guess we know who would be failing the test…

lol. all stealth planes are supposed to be hidden. you never cease to amuse. why don’t you atleast look in the dictionary next time genius!!

Stealth is a word that comes from ancient roots, meaning “to steal”. The F-22, JSF, F-117 and other planes use stealth. Using this technology, one can infiltrate the enemy’s defenses without (hopefully) being detected.

can this dude really be this stupid?

the writer obviously meant the b-2 for it’s unstable flight - unsuitable design concept for a fighter to be modeled after.

The B-2 bomber, which is much larger than the F-117, actually has an even smaller radar cross-section. Unlike the F-117, it is not angular. This was due to increasing computer power, which allowed designers to develop aircraft with smooth, rounded surfaces that achieved the same results as the flat, angled surfaces of the F-117. The F-22 Raptor interceptor, which first flew in the early 1990s, and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also share these characteristics. The French Rafale and European Eurofighter/Typhoon also have stealth features.

well this site is gov so your bs rant about negative curve is rather odd when you missed on thrust vector and rounded surfaces, key features of the f-22.


“the writer obviously meant the b-2 for it’s unstable flight - unsuitable design concept for a fighter to be modeled after.”

i think neither writer nor you have an aerospace degree. unstable flight is EXACTLY what is desired for a fighter!

your quote from centennial site means nothing. your attempting to move this discussion from Bangle’s quote. good thing. makes no sense afaic. lets return to it:

“A great airplane designer once said ‘pretty planes fly faster.’ And then came the Stealth, proving the paradigm wrong.”

in his quote we agree “Stealth” refers to F-117. designed for stealth operation. but Stealth has no meaning in quote beyond identifying it as F-117. the F-117 IS slower than other fighters as YO points reminds us (except maybe the Warthog!). its not a supersonic fighter. most all are.

i’d guess slow speed due to using anti-radar geometries. maybe heat reduction limited engine output. but flow separation is probly a big issue. going transonic probly a nightmare w those shapes. all intended to break up a radar pulse into fragments. scatter the reflection. so ugly meant slow.

also stealth is not clearly related to speed. thats why Bangle comment is probly directed to F-117. its ugly. the B-2 is beautiful. and as your link says, it has smaller radar cross section. its more stealthy. and its fast (should be with low drag coefficient). so here a more STEALTHY plane does indeed fly faster AND its beautiful. how was the paradigm broken? it wasnt. so again, Bangle was probly referring to F-117. an ugly airplane he believed was fast.

if you want to learn about things i discuss, might try net search on “aerodynamics”+“angle of attack”+“center of moment”. not sure what that gets you. should find relation i discuss. the plots. then might reconsider calling my discussion a “bs rant”.

and for good measure, your very own area51 site does get it right:

Grumman developed the X-29. The X-29 was the first aircraft that employed the forward-sweeping wing design. The FSW(forward-swept wing) design made an aircraft > extremely unstable, and therefore, highly maneuverable> . The only problem was that a human pilot couldn’t control the unstable aircraft, but that was quickly solved by making high-speed computers control the super-responsive wings (fly-by-wire system) and making the wings out of special flexible materials. The result was a highly maneuverable aircraft design with a promising future as being used for military fighters with excellent dogfighting capabilities.

last. to put quote you use in proper context, computing power was more than just making rounded surfaces in CAD. it had to do w computing radar reflections too. and like the X-29 computer controlled flight. the B-2 has no vertical control surfaces (tail fins) or horizontal stabilizers. it needs computers to help fly it. just like the X-29. the F-117 still has those control surfaces. just not vertical. so it is still more stable than B-2 (ie - the Cm-alpha curve plot tends more positive. by comparison the X-29 would be very negative. common sense. design airliner for very positive Cm-alpha for stability. the more stable the less manueverable. the less stable the more dynamic and manuevarable. vectored thrust is separate in this regard from aerodynamic equation. its separate force vector that can be applied at unique angles. no more “aerodynamics” than hitting a plane w a missile and shifting flight path 90Degrees instantly).

“key features of the f-22.”

again. we’re not discussing the F-22. we’re discussing the F-117 and Bangle’s quote and whether he’s worthy to contribute to an ID Exam. stay on topic please.

p.s. - should clarify. when i say “Cm-alpha curves goes negative. highly positive Cm-alpha is airliner” i refer to interpreted results. plot that slopes DOWN left to right is a negative slope curve, but a positive stability result.]