By Len D. Singer

Len Singer Design and Research , Portsmouth VA, 23703 USA
Former Professor of Industrial Design, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, and Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.  Emeritus Member: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Industrial Designers Society of America, and Environmental Design Research Association. 

Synopsis
The objective of this paper is to examine design failure from an industrial design and safety perspective. Trained as a “gestalter” (literally in German, “form-giver”) to envision in totality the problem, process and product, the industrial designer appreciates both the qualitative, quantitative and consequential aspects of design- and design failure. Illustrated examples of common household product hazards are analyzed through a three-step process using Safety Analysis Matrices, Design Safety Element Sheets and Accident Scenario Data Sheets  to record and carefully identify and examine design interactions resulting from the influence of form or form-related actions leading to design failure. Since no known previous research on the specific topic ( form- as a direct or indirect cause of an accident) was found, no historical reference could be included for comparative study. 

Introduction
Among the many consequences of design failure, by far the most important is safety. According to the National Safety Council Report Injuries in America, 2005,almost 9 million Americans suffered permanently disabling injuries and 35,000 deaths due to accidents in the home. The annual cost  to the nation in lost productivity and medical expense is estimated at over $ 5.5 billion. Accidents involving consumer products are the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. This can be attributed, in part, to products lacking built-in protective safeguards, effective warning labels or compliance with regulations. But, despite much research in accident analysis and prevention, the precise cause and nature of many accidents remain hidden, unknown, or attributed to “user error” (Czaja, S.J, 1983).

The Form Factor
An overlooked, but potentially important factor in product safety is its’ form or shape. The form of a product—whether unintentional or not—can introduce distractions, or worse, for safe and proper use. Product form and style can communicate actions that mislead, confuse and otherwise interfere with safe requirements by suppressing or concealing critical out-of-aware sensory cues. This may be seen as a harmless fashion -but with potentially deadly consequences. 

Products and packages convey meaning through shape, texture, sound and weight, as well as form, and style to communicate and encourage or discourage proper use—which may or may not be safe. Yet many design decisions are left to personal discretion. By designing to help guide user actions in a safe manner, it can also alert users to potential hazards and instill confidence to avoid or reduce human error. Most product accident investigation focuses on either engineering factors such as structural, mechanical defects or human factors such as user physical, anthropometric or cognitive limitations. However, underlying hidden factors such as product form and other sensory-related influences, including tactile, auditory kinesthetic and olfactory, as well as visual characteristics that play a key role—but are rarely acknowledged. Indeed, such conditions influence all design decisions.- for good or bad. Add to this that free market, consumption driven culture we live in, and it’s not surprising that product safety has become an import issue as it is now everyone’s problem.

This paper will illustrate  through slides and anecdotal descriptions, select examples of design failure related to product form. It will introduce a three-step process to analyze product characteristics to reveal hidden injuries resulting  from sensory stressors and hazards before, during and after use. Injury-Sensory Modality Matricies, and Accident Scenario Element Sheet are introduced to systematically record and describe hazard patterns involved (Singer, L.D., 1993).

For example, the dangers of inadvertently replacing a common eye medication bottle with an identical plastic container used for soldering acid. When placed besides the bed at night the soldering acid bottle can easily be mistaken for eye medication, as it communicates indis-tinguishable sensations of  shape, touch, temperature -and sound- from the medication bottle – but with potentially catastrophic results.

Another example of design failure is the widespread use of foam, peanut shaped “nuggets” for packaging to prevent damage during delivery. When left unattended, a child can easily mistake the nuggets for a common snack food closely resembling the shape, size, color as well as tactile sensation in the mouth. And if  ingested, the child can choke to death.

Conclusions
The three-step method in assessing safety through careful sensory design analysis and evaluation presented in this paper does not preclude the need for more systematic approaches toward understanding and better appreciating hidden or out-of-aware aspects of design and design process. The new administration in Washington has already indicated a special interest in advancing such activity- especially those requiring innovative approaches. More activity in safety research is needed not only to better understand the cause of accidents, but also be able directly influence the design process prior to manufacture. The industrial designer can play an important role in helping achieve this.

References

Czaja, S.J.     Accidents and Aging, BOSTI REPORT, N.Y. 1983.

Singer, L D. Product Safety and Form, Interface ;93, Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, May 5-8, 1993, Raleigh, N.C. North Carolina State University, pp 84-88.