Approach and Process

We understood that reimagining the Good Night Lamp would require a level of intention that speaks to the immense intention that went into the lamp design. We began by identifying the primary design features of the lamp, which we defined as follows:

1. Accessible to the less technologically literate

2. Doing one thing really well

3. Belonging in the home

4. Contextual-meaning

Then with the features identified, we ranked them in terms of importance. This would provide us a vision for our reimagination. The iterative process followed asking ourselves the question: if could stay true to one feature, what would it be? Then, eliminating the winning feature, we asked it again. With our features prioritized, we considered how they would influence our reimagining process.

Accessible to the less technologically literate means a simple interface. We avoided screens or complex actions. Doing one thing really well guided us away from adding multiple features, and we eventually decided to adapt the lamp with one feature simply and really well. Belonging in the home we understood to mean warm, welcoming, and unobtrusive. Finally, contextual-meaning guided us away from choosing a feature that had meaning in of itself. We wanted to adapt without losing the user’s ability to add meaning, in fact.

We then set out in the design process to consider how we want the user to interact with the lamp, how the lamp will interact with the physical environment, and how the lamps will interact with each other. We considered the following questions to guide our consideration for the purpose and meaning of our reimagining:

• What was the Good Night Lamp lacking?

• Portability - the Good Night Lamp was quite large and did not allow connection without being with the lamp

• Two way communication - the Good Night Lamp only allowed for the large lamp to light up the smaller lamps; two way communication was only possible if users each purchased a large lamp and exchanged small ones

• The house is very traditional - the house shape may not appeal to everyone

• It lacks expression - the lamp is singular and abstract, there is no personalization or expression

• What did it do well?

• Meaning came completely from context

• Very warm and ambient design - use of wood and white plastic

• Easy to use - starting up just required plugging it in and a mere button press was its only function

• Shape of the home - gable roof shape - it is common in many cultures and is easily recognizable as safe and welcoming

• Anonymity, target customer with different ethnographic backgrounds - it’s lack of specificity allowed many people and cultures to connect with it

• “Homey” feel of single light and “warm” materials

With these considerations, we decided to impact one functional feature and one design feature. This guided us to our core questions: what purpose do we want the added feature to serve and would the new feature be design or functional? How does the added feature impact the context - limiting or expanding? We did not want to select a feature then fit it to the lamp, we wanted to consider the effect we wanted and identify a feature to match it.

We considered mobility, creating a network of lamps, allowing a form of expression, providing additional and potentially more specific messages, or adding shadows. We decided that we wanted to focus on two-way communication for our functional feature and enabling a form of personalization for the design component.

We elected to not deviate away from a single light as our feature, but sought to add a two way communication through different light patterns. We wanted patterns that continued to be ambient and decided to use off, on, breathe, and flutter. On and off were natural selections and breathing is common in other ambient lights. Flutter was selected as an evolution from blinking; however, blinking felt too obtrusive. Therefore, we explored patterns and decided flutter offers a happy medium between flash and ambient.

For the design component, we wanted to give users the ability to define home for them. Initially we thought this meant deviating from the gable shape, but we wanted to pay homage to the Good Night Lamp and recognize the safe and comfort the recognizable symbol provided. Thus, we elected to give users the ability to personalize what they considered home by allowing for cutouts or stencils to be added to the frame.

Finally, we had to consider how the user would interact with the device. We wanted to go beyond the simplicity of a button, we wanted a design that made the home feel uninterrupted. Rotating the shell provided that feeling.

In conclusion, our process left us with a gable home with rivets on the outside that allowed for stencils to be added, which rotated to activate 4 different light patterns (including off). This stayed true to the Good Night Lamp. We avoided an interface and focused on physical interaction by the user to stay true to accessibility. We wanted to continue to use a single color lamp really well. We selected a shape that would fit well in the home. Finally, we expanded the contextual meaning without imposing our own.