Interview with Scott Summit

By Kelly Goto

Scott Summit is an innovator and industry leader in Industrial Design (ID) and the principal and founder of Summit ID, a San Francisco firm specializing in conceptual product design that changes the way people live. In this interview, Kelly Goto talks to Scott about his personal approach to design, collaboration and his own process. Industrial Design factors in the original 'user experience' where the technology and usage meets factor and form in a completely unapologetic manner.

KG: Most people dream of doing what they love - and having the ability to work, travel and live a life of your own creation. Can you talk about what inspires you most about the work you do and how you direct your passions towards such a positive result?

Scott: I do need the flexibility of time, steerage, projects, direction, pursuits, etc in order to feel that everything is properly aligned. I need to have sponaneity of travel, and a potentially unlimited vacation time allowance as well to satisfy the travel and recreation bug. I typically log 1-3 months vacation per year, though this may well be compensated for by the long hours that sometimes are required. There is a perspective that grows out of international interactions that simply cannot be cultivated any other way. I feel that it's especially vital that a designer - one who interprets, shapes and reflects society - have as broad an understanding of the complex nature of the world as possible.

KG: In the ID world, product design is often focused on understanding the lifestyle needs and behaviors of the people who use them. How do you gain insight and understanding of your audience and incorporate it into your design process?

Scott: Design is method acting. You assume the life of your end consumer and wear their hat for the duration. You buy their magazines, go to their movies, shop where they shop, etc, to get into their heads. I end up designing mobile tech products largely, which are aimed at the professional in their 30's. Easy to empathize, so those turn out the best. But even something as unrelated as a vibrator or surgical tool can be created once you see things through the user's eyes in whatever way possible.

KG: The word 'brand' is often used in your discussion of product design and company value. Can you elaborate a bit on how your designs help to create a company's brand value and your definition of brand itself?

Zodiac

Scott: This question could turn into a book. In short, the company has to provide the seedlings for the brand vision. If it's a startup, their brand needs are very different from an established company, which only need tuning and slight steerage. Brand is a balance between differentiation and familiarity, between integration and a bold pronouncement of presence. The Zodiac created a brand where there was nothing before, as did the Xenote and the Digiscents. Apple products during that period merely extended an established language to expected areas. Ultimately, a brand is all about identifying the core messages in the company, and making sure that these are clearly conveyed through every aspect of the product's experience.

KG: We've been lucky enough to collaborate with you on several projects incorporating user interface components with the physical product design. Can you talk a bit about your approach to creating an effective user experience and how research and collaboration aid in this approach?

Digiscents

Scott: The user experience has to be thought of as a cocktail, where physical interaction, visual feedback, information architecture, and a number of other elements must intermix fluidly in order to result in a satisfying experience. At the core is a set of functionality details that need to be conveyed both physically and visually, and there are many ways to embody these. Every point of interaction - a dial, a touchpad, a toggle, a button, a scroll wheel, a stylus - comes with a mental association with its expected usage and the expected results. The designer must be cognizant of these while locating, prioritizing, shaping, selecting these in order that the user never feels that there is any mismatch between expectations and experience. We must find ways to embody the complex map of functionality into a clean, clear, understandable, and organized architecture, whether it takes shape physically or visually. I think that the best designs are those that result from close and immediate interaction between the two resources, as they can infuse their particular perspectives into the process at every decision.

Designing the user experience must be seen as a start-from-scratch process, to some extent, with every new design. It would be easy to fall into the trap of convention, simply as a result of familiarity. For example, most car audio equipment and temperature adjustment now has buttons that replace dials. This flies in the face of functionality, since a dial is far more conveniently adjusted than a series of button clicks, - it's simply that a button is far cheaper to manufacture. If one were to design based solely on precedent, then the button would make for an obvious candidate. But it's necessary to experience the product for the first time, every time, and decide on interaction methodology throughout the product based on the unique usability needs that surround each interaction experience.

A further, and more complex interaction challenge has more to do with the ego of the user. While it is important to create an experience that is intuitive and natural to use, it's every bit as important to the experience that the user not come away insulted. Though buttons shaped like large arrows and shapes in bright, primary colors may make sense from the functionality perspective, a user may feel as though the product talks down to them, and does not respect their taste or intelligence. The designer must be cognizant of both ends of the spectrum and decide on the look and feel accordingly.

KG: How do you see Industrial/Product Design changing in the next decade? Are there any trends you see in the field, such as cultural influences, technical advances or lifestyle changes that affect the work you do?

Scott: ID is in for some changes. Asian Contract Manufacturers (CM's) and Original Design Manufacturers (ODM's) have traditionally sought their US counterpart's experience to drive the design, and focused their attention on manufacturing. Now they are confident to take a design from a preliminary concept and implement it with reasonable design sensibility. This chops the cost of development in half, so the business world has eagerly jumped on the new model. The result so far has been miserable, but cheap. The time is approaching when US designers are not needed, or at least reduced to an oversight role in product creation. Which means that designers must focus on what Asia can't do cheaper just yet. This isn't entirely clear, but it will likely have much to do a shift of focus to emphasize creating brand identity more than individual product. Whether the business community will accept paying for something that appears so nebulous and esoteric to most of them is yet to be determined. Products will likely continue in the direction of becoming increasingly addressable, intelligent, wireless, and portable. We are in the nascent stages of mobile technology development, reminiscent of the evolution of single-celled beings into complex life forms in the Pre-Cambrian age. Technologies are hybridized, market-tested, evolved, and killed off rapidly as mobile technology continues to redefine itself.