It is not unusual for Judges to harbor misgivings about a design territory that is becoming blurred around the edges. Even if they feel that the ranges of the designers' contributions and their expectations are broadening, they wonder whether it isn't more socially meaningful for the G-Mark, a screening mechanism that has already amassed a long history, to maintain its traditional categories. Shouldn't they strive for easily understood evaluations based on design in the narrow sense, or, in other words, esthetic standards and comfort, instead of endlessly going off in different directions in evaluating design? These kinds of considerations often make the design evaluation activities take a conservative approach.
Amidst all this, setting up a New Territory Design Category has significance as an experiment. That is, letting fringe areas comes into prominence and radically expanding their territory makes it clear where designers may go and where they must not go (if there are such forbidden areas). The only thing that Judges for the New Territory Design Category, made up of artists, dealers, engineers, and journalists, as well as designers, agreed upon was the radical idea of trying to see how far design could go. These kinds of experimental evaluations may compromise the practice of making precise evaluations. They may also bring to light the limits of the G-Mark evaluation system itself or mark the end of its reasons for existence. I want these risky judgments to serve as the take-off point for discussion, and I am resigned to receiving criticism.

 
The Design of Information Formats

In the information society, the quality of the data modes that lie at the center of basic technology and the transmission formulas control people's comfort and accessibility and invite the development of new markets. Formerly, data formatting placed an emphasis on precision and efficiency, but it is now impossible to design such formats without taking people's demands, hopes, and preferences into consideration. In that sense, the development of information formatting has come into designers' line of sight.
"i-mode," which was awarded a prize in this category this year, is an example of a commercially successful information format design. The success of "i-mode" is due to the adoption of packet communications, which allows high-volume transmission of information in a short time. That is to say, a user can write e-mail offline ahead of time and send it during a very short connection period. By offering convenience to the extent of risking diminished profitability, the company has spurred demand and opened up a market for wireless Internet access that didn't even exist in the United States. By offering representational power that does not tax the capabilities of the cellular phone interface and limiting the types of content available, the company came up with a design that showed insight into the lifestyles of potential users.
On the other hand, the i-mode interface is by no means intuitive, so many people have trouble learning to use it properly, and problems of accessibility remain. Even so, we rewarded the "good design" of this format in order to let the general public know that a whole new territory of design had appeared on the scene. The design of the information format in this device clearly goes beyond the boundaries of the type of visual information design that emphasizes having an attractive screen. We would like designers to take a more comprehensive view of the situation and consider the best possible forms for both the content and hardware at the same time. There is a demand for well-established design technology that takes this overall view and actually anticipates ways in which users could benefit.

 
Bad Taste Good Design

The phrase "good design" has had an air of the dogmatic about it throughout the history of modern design. However, if we are talking about contemporary design, it is unrealistic to resist the influence of the thriving "bad taste" design seen on the street. In the New Territory Design Category, we tried to ascertain certain uniform standards, even for this kind of kitschy design. Since street-level design starts by rejecting normative evaluation, this action may involve a fundamental contradiction. However, since products give the market its shape, we can expect there to be some points of agreement between the designer and the user, and the New Territory Design Category would like to take the bold step of asking about what kitsch should really be like. It goes without saying that there was no way to measure the practicality or comfort of the designs of the products of Meiwa Denki, which received the G-Mark this year. Yet, the designers retained that product group's feeling of completeness as industrial products by daring to indicate clearly their uselessness, eccentricity, or physiological instability. That is, as long as the designer and the user can agree that "uselessness" in the normal sense is an attraction of the product, they can, such standards of industrial quality as durability, safety, and reasonable price are maintained. This uneasy harmony is regarded and evaluated as "avant-garde." We want it to be understood that presenting these kinds of products to the market with the G-Mark affixed is not some sort of subtle "bad joke." Instead, we are posing the question, "What is good design?"

 
Design and Building Up a Business

It is already self-evident that the activities of designers go beyond commercial development of a single product and also have a significant effect on brand strategy and corporate strategy. Even so, our previous G-Mark projects had no system for clearly evaluating the contributions of strategic design.
This year, we have made a concerted effort to evaluate these kinds of design strategies, and as a result, we evaluated the efforts of "MUJI" and "Starbucks Coffee" to maintain an easily understood and consistent design strategy and the new ventures by "Elephant Design" and the "WiLL Project."
Viewed historically, granting awards to design as a business may itself be pass. The reason is that the G-Mark, which grew out of the marks of approval affixed to products, was not amenable to the application of this kind of evaluation.
Many entries other than the ones mentioned here received awards for their systems and activities in the New Territory Design Category. Many of the winners didn't even have a physical place to affix the G-Mark. Since the things we were evaluating were less tangible and more intangible, we were able to see the physical limitations of the system of affixing a mark on the product. If the recipients are to obtain a clear benefit from the Marks, they must be guaranteed the opportunity for a forceful publicity campaign.

 
Where Science, Technology, and Design Come into Contact

It has become difficult to find points of contact between the increasingly specialized domains of Science and Technology and art. However, the participation of designers at scientific research sites where the scientists have only vague intentions of applying their research is important for connecting the results of research to the well-being and everyday comfort of humanity. Taking this point of view, we evaluated those scientific and technological case studies which incorporate esthetic considerations. The results of research at Nagoya University and the Japan Science and Technology Corporation deserve Good Design Awards for taking the lead in creating new territory for designers to test their skills in.
In general, the G-Mark in the New Territory Design Category is given to the most pioneering examples in order to indicate clearly the Judges' expectations for new territory of activities for designers. Due to the limited number of examples, we didn't make many comparisons, and we were relatively unable to classify the applicants. If the experimental attempts that make up the New Territory Design Category are to lay claim to definitive standards and a clear design territory, we will need to solicit more applications. Eventually, this may lead to a situation in which the items that are currently receiving good evaluations will have only a slight chance of being rated highly in the future. One of this year's winners, A-POC and last year's AIBO are probably no exception to this trend. We would like to ask that undertaking this kind of risk-taking to be understood as the G-Mark's policy toward innovation.