The Original 10%?

Further to Alex Green's post “Useful?”

“The word “design” is defined and based on how an object or concept balances three attributes: aesthetics, function, and cost. The “best” designs are usually equated with the highest costs, so that the designers’ names attain an aura of privilege or distinction--and thereby bestow commensurate prestige on the user.”1

Funding is a main issue in any situation, especially in today's economic climate. For all the problems in the world, there will always be a solution, but the larger the problem, the higher the cost of the solution. Where a solution can be thought of to tackle a problem, it will always fall upon what funds can be received in order to implement the designed solution. A prime example of this problem would be the Q-drum. Designed to tackle the difficulty of transporting water over long distances in countries like Africa, the Q-drum was an ideal solution.


But this “low cost, rollable water container for developing countries,” as it is described on it's website, provides only half a solution, whilst at the same time presenting a secondary problem. On the page detailing the pricing of the Q-drums, it explicitly states "The people that need them need can't afford them & must rely on people who can afford them but don't need them." The problem created then, is that the item designed for “the other 90%,” then comes under the scrutiny of the original 10% who, as stated, have three distinct concerns.


And as was quoted of Dr. Paul Polak, “Nothing less than a revolution in design is needed to reach the other 90%.”2 If the product is anything short of a media superstar, chances are the product, no matter how perfectly functional it is, will probably never even see it past the design phase.


1. Barbara Bloemink, ‘Foreword,’ Design for the Other 90% (Cooper-Hewitt, NYC 2007).

2. Dr Paul Polak, http://www.qdrum.co.za/index.php/home