Rant of a Born-again Luddite

I wish someone who is more "au fait" with technology than me would explain to me why industrial designers are as a rule so useless.

By industrial designers, I mean of course, not the basic engineers as such but the people who decide the final form of those necessary items like washing-machines, kettles, cars, and the like.

For example I have a washing-machine. It is a Zanussi, which is a very good make. It is reasonably priced, well-made, reliable, long-lasting, and has a good after-sales service. It is the second of its line in my house. The first generation had a number of annoying design faults. For example, the machine was not programmed to switch itself off when its cycle was completed. You would go off to do some gardening or something, and come back to find all done but the little red light still glowing, which meant another wait while the safety delay kept the door locked after you had manually turned it off. Secondly, the spin cycles only applied automatically to certain programmes. The lighter washes, such as woollies, ended with a drum full of water and you had to manually turn to the spin cycle. So when you forgot, and turned the machine off, when you opened the door a cataract of water would pour out because there was also no safety sensor to tell the machine that it was still full. Thirdly, the drain in the bottom, to catch items like fluff, safety pins, disintegrated kleenex, or curtain hooks, was so built that you had to twist the holder sideways and draw it out horizontally, thus tipping any dirty water retained on to the floor.

That machine served me well for fifteen years, and when I replaced it I went for another Zanussi. The manufacturors had rectified each of the design faults listed above, due to customer feedback they said proudly. I give them credit for that - but why did they sell a model with such obvious glitches to start with? Didn't anybody in the workshop ever try to empty the drain trap? Or realise what happens if the door can be opened when the drum is full of water?

I have a little Goblin cylinder vacuum-cleaner. It's about 20 years old and still going strong. For some reason, it has been made to that it is weighted to one side, and naturally falls on to that side when you are moving it around. And the designer has put the on/off switch on that side so that the cleaner switches itself off three or four times every time I use it, as the switch is compressed by the weight of the cylinder.

I wonder if, in a later model, the makers put the switch in a less vulnerable position "due to customer feedback"? And did no-one in the laboratory ever try to use the cleaner so that they would have noticed how it behaved?

And why are the majority of household items, particularly kitchen items, made with acrylic snap-on plastic clips and switches? Acrylic plastic denatures relatively quickly, so the item is rendered useless because it can't be closed or turned off/on once the clip or switch has broken off.

What is the use of clear acrylic for heavy-duty kitchen items? It is so soft it scratches immediately, and bang goes the attractive see-through look.

Why are food-processors and vegetable mincing-peeling-slicing gadgets built so that they take twice as long to assemble, and then disassemble and clean, than they do to process the food in the first place?

I have a yoghurt-maker. It is not dishwasher or boiling-water safe. Any housewife knows, that with dairy produce you MUST be able to thoroughly sterilise the equipment. Hand-hot washes are NOT enough.

Template problem

I am going to have to change the template of this blog. I really like it, such a soothing colour, but I cannot work out how to put links to other people's blogs into the sidebar, and I need to be able to do that before May 1st Blogging against Disablism Day.

If any kind blogger who has experience of this template can advise me before then, I would be most grateful. Otherwise, I'll switch to one of those which has a ready-made Edit-Me section.

Female Diogenes

My parents came to adulthood before the Second World War, so the values they transmitted to me were very much of that society. And totally unlike the morality which holds sway today.

No, I am not talking about sex.

For one thing, it was a given that, if you were the odd one out in any situation, you would be the one to make any necessary adjustments or sacrifices. Unlike today, where the individual is brought up to believe that, if necessary, the whole of society must shove over in order to grant his whim.

Consideration for others was also a given. Not making a row at night, when others need to sleep; stepping aside in doorways, and holding doors open. These don't come easy to the young, who are naturally preoccupied with themselves, but we were taught.

It was also a given that, if you wanted anything, you were expected to earn it. Then came the notion, in the Thatcher years, that "whatever you want, is yours by right if you have the balls to take it." Fine - but I do not see any mention in there of considering the rights of any other person, such as a prior owner or occupant, of the thing you want. In fact, nowadays, merely wanting something seems to confer, to the immature mind, the right to have it, and sod anyone else's rights. It is a baby's natural solopsism, but parents used to have the authority to disabuse the infant of such presumption before its first birthday.

I think society is the worse for abandoning these principles, because it is the weak who suffer. We are supposed to be a civilised race, not indulging in jungle warfare, and the macho posturing of those who parrot about the "real world" makes me sick.

Okay, now let's talk about sex.

The sexual morality of those days was repellent. My mother's generation believed devoutly that (a) men only want one thing (b) they want it so badly they'll marry you to get it (oh yeah?) (c) once they've had it without a wedding-ring, not only will they leave you flat, they'll put the word round all their friends that you are "easy". So you bartered your virginity for a wedding-ring, which even in those days was not a ticket for life.

Boys, on the other hand, seem to have been taught that any trick was permissible to seduce a girl, because if she "gave in" it was all her fault for being "impure" and they had no further responsibility towards her. Wives were property, and their place was in the kitchen or flat on their back. No man could be expected to take on another man's child.

Then in the Sixties came what was known as the New Morality, or Permissive Society. Somebody (who? Big Brother? The Queen?) had to give permission for sexual activity outside marriage. Agony columns in women's magazines peddled the lie that it was "all right", that is, not immoral, only if you were "truly in love". So ensured the maximum suffering.

Am I glad that poisonous rubbish has gone. I prefer the honest paganism of today.

Now please visit this site
and support a very worthy cause on May 1st!