Comments on: Feature deletion for environmental reasons

By: anon

anon — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:18:18 +0000

frazer, i think you miss the point of the article: the feature serves, in somecases, an essential function (disabled, elderly etc). it is not stand-by that is the problem per se but the manner in which it has been implemented

By: Making energy use visible at fulminate // Architectures of Control

Making energy use visible at fulminate // Architectures of Control — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:00:29 +0000

[...] Kieva Mussington: Energy Monitor Switch Kieva Mussington, a product design graduate from the University of Brighton, has specifically addressed the problem of devices left on standby, with the Energy Monitor Switch: This product concept helps reduce wasted electricity in the home caused by appliances that have inefficient standby modes by making users aware of how much energy they use. Further developments include a light switch and plug socket disabling device that will make it easier for the user to save electricity. [...]

By: Shaping behaviour: Part 2 at fulminate // Architectures of Control

Shaping behaviour: Part 2 at fulminate // Architectures of Control — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:42:52 +0000

[...] The related debate over standby buttons on home electrical equipment which I covered briefly in July last year, brought home an important point to me, as someone who’s worked on quite a few consumer electronic products powered from adaptors: many users think that if a red LED is on when the product is ‘off’, that little LED is all that’s being powered. That’s quite an important issue when it comes to consumers having a better understanding of their home energy use. [...]

By: Architectures of Control in Design » Some interesting aspects of built-in obsolescence

Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:23:58 +0000

[...] See also Feature deletion for environmental reasons and Case study: Optimum Lifetime Products. Please share this!These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:20:12 +0000

It’s just a convenience feature - and in some cases, e.g. where a TV is mounted on a wall out of easy reach (e.g. in a pub) it might make some sense, though in a normal house, using the standby function really is just lazy.

I guess most everyday people are maybe not aware that electical items still use a lot of power on standby. If this was more common knowledge, we’d probably have seen the standby button disappear a long time ago - appealing to people’s pockets is (often) one way to get them to change their behaviour.

But while it looks as though the only power being used is going to light that single red LED on the front, the actual power being wasted isn’t clear.

And I think it’s important to note that however much some designers might (personally) have wanted to change or remove this function, the specification which includes it is handed to them by someone else, and unfortunately it’s more than most designers’ jobs are worth to question built-in design assumptions like this.

By: frazer

frazer — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:04:25 +0000

You would think this ‘function’ would have died out long ago. I cannot think of one good reason why this was invented. If somebody responds with “well it makes people’s lives easier when switching on a tv etc” is just … frivolous.

Another blatant example of a mismanaged design research and its processes.