Designers like to make prototypes: something the “people” can never use. A recent Gizmodo article explains this well. But I will continue on a sub-set of this idea.

From Consumers willing to throw their money to the next best-thing, or the more rational, planned among us, we all do not care what a company “can” do. What they “could” do is like a carrot hanging in front of us. We all want the product or relationship which does-as-promised:one which is trustworthy.

Within today’s tech market I see 2 significant, praactical problems behind trustworthiness (aside from “theorhetical” or philosophic distrust in Capitalism or Modernism..)

Trouble #1:  What we treat as mere Commodity, is actually an incredibly powerful (all too powerful!) system for the promise to be fulfilled. Systems fail, especially when insufficient sub-ground (peat!) level knowledge and information is not accounted for. The correlate: What most people “take for granted” (read: take as solid ground, trustworthy) is only trustworthy under certain conditions, not under ALL conditions. The lack of info, concern & detail at this level is why things break for some people and not for others.

Trouble #2: Design/designers face/have created this problem. Designers, working in immaterial wonder-lands have all free-reign to imagine, imagine, imagine. We all wish time and space for this freedom for ourselves. As children, perhaps some of us had such time. Designers need feedback, and they need to take parameters early & seriously. If they cannot work within boundaries, they are not responsible designers, but children. If they cannot see the that they cannot see, harsh reality will exact their fate. But if no feedback is ever given to them, if they are protected from the “production” (materiality) phase, how can they learn?