Lucas
Licht Pradillo
Age 24
Current Education Master’s Industrial Design
University University of Technology Eindhoven
Expertise Areas User Experience Design
& Creativity and Aesthetics
Languages English, German, Spanish, Dutch
Sports Tennis, Diving, Sailing, Squash
My Vision
The affordability of digital screen technology has brought many advantages, for example, the potential to reduce production costs by minimizing mechanical components. Consequently, this has caused a shift in the design paradigm where a lot of new products now predominantly feature touch display interactions. The digitization of many previously tangible interactions has resulted in overly complicated interfaces. Since I enjoy looking at and trying out new products, I often find myself wandering through consumer electronics stores, looking at all the different products on display, and in many cases, questions arise such as: Is this feature really necessary? or could this not have been solved in a tangible way and therefore resulted in a much better user experience?
Show More
My belief is that products should be made for a specific set of tasks, instead of trying to be something that appears to solve everything at once. In many products, it only adds complexity for the user and oftentimes, a product that tries to do everything at once is worse at each individual activity. Many of them do this by resorting to displays which, on the one hand, allow many new features to be integrated, however, in my opinion, they make the interaction less meaningful and intuitive. Instead, I aim to create concepts which use tangible interaction to evoke a more qualitative user experience.
I aim to largely involve the user in the design process and integrate their values into my designs. After all, they are the ones I will be designing for. However, my vision of reintegrating tangible interactions can easily misalign with the vision of the users or clients. Cramping more features into a product can appear to be a great idea as you get more value for money. However, this overlooks the fact that often these features are not well-integrated leading to an overall worse user experience. One example of this would be the all-digital infotainment screens for current cars. Accessing even basic settings such as the AC often requires multiple clicks on the screens and this inattention from the primary visual area can lead to accidents.
As such, I believe designers should strive to create hybrid systems that balance the benefits of digital screen technology with the need for tangible interfaces. However, care must be taken in the design of these tangible interfaces. Simply adding physical buttons and levers is not enough. The tangible interface and the resulting interaction should match the desired action and the expectations of the users. In addition, the design language should communicate the possible interaction as this will ensure that users intuitively know what a certain product affords them to do. To conclude, although digital technology can enable many product functionalities, it doesn’t mean they are all necessary and more importantly they should all be digitalized. Instead, designers should aim for a well-informed balance between the benefits of digital screen technology and tangible interfaces.
show less
My Professional Identity
When I look at myself and think about what kind of designer I am, two things stand out to me. Firstly, the fact that whenever possible I want to create tangible products that can be held and physically interacted with. And secondly, my desire to make sure the values of the end users are considered and integrated in the design process.
I can say that I am someone who likes to create products for the near future, which could realistically be implemented in the coming 5-15 years. However, I don’t enjoy speculative design as a whole. In the past, I have explored speculative design, which was meant to create a critical perspective, which showed me that whilst it can inspire creative and critical thinking, I cannot relate to these projects as much as they feel too abstract. Instead, I prefer to explore and predict future trends which still provoke thought and discussion, however they are closer to reality.
Show More
I like to start projects with a clear problem statement to which I have to find the best possible solution. For this reason, design processes such as the material-driven design one, go against my way of thinking. I am very reluctant to start with a material and then search for a problem that could be solved with this material as it makes the project feel less meaningful for me. Looking more closely at the typical design cycle, I would say I enjoy the Design and Development phases the most. These phases allow me to fully explore my creativity and to create prototypes at different levels of fidelity, which can bring the ideas to life so they can be evaluated with users.
Involving the user in the design process is always a priority for me as I value a human-centred design process. I believe that truly understanding their challenges and the various values stakeholders hold should always be the first step before starting any iteration. Whilst I have had experience with passively getting to understand users, I enjoy active methods such as interviews or co-design much more. They allow me to understand underlying values held by users. My desire to include the values of the users is sometimes not quite aligned with my own vision which can be challenging. At this point I have to make an informed decision where to balance the project, which I first try to find through literature, and if this is not possible, through separate ideations that can be merged afterwards. In line with the expertise area User & Society, I have the ability to get to know the user using a variety of methods and to integrate these insights in my designs, and to evaluate them.
Throughout the master I have learned that whilst working on a design project I prefer to work in a multidisciplinary team. Considering that I am a very empathic person, I noticed that I often take a guiding role during these projects, as I am able to understand the different team members and consider routes which play to everyone’s strengths. My empathic nature also makes me consider team dynamics, wanting to ensure everyone feels comfortable and is able to express themselves. I believe the value in multidisciplinary teams lies in the ability to expand one’s skills by explaining my own expertise in the area of design, whilst also learning from the expertise areas of the other team members.
Overall, I would consider myself an empathic designer that values user involvement, and who enjoys the creative and maker steps of the design process the most. And who’s visual design language is strongly influenced by minimalist design.
show less