Interaction Design · Project 1 of 3 · Weeks 1–5
Package Design Project 2: Less / Forever
Design within a system of rules
FORMAT
Individual
WEEKS
5–10
METHODS
Lifecycle assessment · Material research · Sustainability framework analysis · Structural prototyping · Surface graphic application · Dieline construction · Adobe Illustrator · Digital mockup · Written argumentation · Iterative critique
TAGS
Package Design, Sustainability, Design Education, Design Thinking
Why this project
Less / Forever is the constraints phase within the course's three-part structure: play → constraints → expression. Its pedagogical approach is inspired by game design education, emphasizing solving problems with defined rules, testable criteria, and clear right or wrong answers. Although this framework might feel uncomfortable in a typical design studio, it fosters more disciplined thinking than an open-ended brief. When students create sustainable packaging without a clear analytical framework, their designs often appear sustainable—using kraft paper, sans-serif fonts, earth tones, or a leaf motif. Conversely, those asked to argue from lifecycle data and material research, defending their choices in writing before starting design, tend to produce packaging with a strong underlying rationale.
The two-path approach is intended to prompt an early judgment call. Path A and Path B are not just different answers to the same question; they represent distinct analytical frameworks suited to different product types. For example, packaging for a fragile product shipped over long distances differs from packaging for a dry good sold in a zero-waste retail setting. When students choose their path without proper product research, their memo often reflects personal preference rather than thorough analysis. The instructor’s approval of the path memo before design begins acts as a checkpoint—ensuring that the analytical framework students bring into prototyping is rooted in the product's actual context.
Wendy Jedlicka's "Packaging Sustainability" offers the main analytical framework for both paths. The lifecycle assessment chapters equip students with vocabulary to describe material impacts beyond simply recyclable or not recyclable. Distinctions such as downcycling versus closed-loop recycling, industrial compostability versus home compostability, and material reduction versus dematerialization, help make sustainability arguments specific instead of superficial. Students who complete the reading can defend their choices in critique, while those who haven't are immediately evident.
The Brief
PROJECT PROMPT
Every packaging piece has a lifecycle: its origin, manufacturing process, usage duration, and disposal destination. Most designs neglect this lifecycle, but in this project, you'll focus on it. Choose a real consumer product and redesign its packaging considering the full material lifecycle as your main constraint. Decide between two approaches based on the product's needs:
Path A — Less: Aim for minimal packaging that still functions, protects, and communicates. Remove unnecessary materials, combine components, and create the simplest effective container. Every element must justify its presence.
Path B — Forever: Design packaging that supports a cradle-to-cradle lifecycle, ensuring each material has a next life—be it composting, reuse, or closed-loop recycling. Trace the entire material journey from source to disposal, ensuring no material is without a future use.
Your path-choice memo—approved before you start designing—must justify why that path suits the product, not personal preference but the product's needs.
This project isn't about creating something that appears sustainable; it's about creating something that truly is.
DELIVERABLE
Path selection memo (1 page): product analysis and argument for chosen path — submitted and approved before design begins
Material research documentation: sourcing, environmental impact, availability, cost implications
Annotated lifecycle diagram: full material journey from source through end-of-life for every component
Minimum 3 ideation sketches with written rationale for each direction
Functional 3D prototype using chosen sustainable material(s)
Applied surface graphics with dieline (Illustrator file, .ai)
Digital mockup
Concept statement (1 page): what the design is, which path and why, environmental impact argument
Process documentation: sketchbook pages, in-process photos, critique notes
Self-assessment — see separate assignment sheet
What I've learned from running this
Less / Forever is a new addition to the curriculum as of this semester's course redesign. It replaces Material is the Message, which asked students to select an interesting material and create designs around it. Those results showed some curiosity about the material, but not consistently grounded in analysis or experimentation. For example, a student who was interested in a seed-embedded board because it was interesting had a different relationship with that choice than one who could articulate its compostability, supply chain, and performance conditions. Material is the Message rewarded interesting choices; Less / Forever requires reasoned choices.
The two-path structure is a new pedagogical experiment I haven't used before. I expect that the defined frameworks—Path A's radical reduction logic and Path B's cradle-to-cradle lifecycle mapping—will lead to more specific environmental arguments than an open brief would. Whether students select appropriate paths and whether the path notes provide the necessary analysis will only be clear after the project. The approval checkpoint is designed to catch mismatches early: a student choosing Path A for a fragile product that needs durable packaging may not understand the product. Identifying this in Week 5 is better than in the Week 10 critique.
Spring Break occurs during this project. From previous experience, students who delay prototyping until just before break tend to underestimate what is entailed. This new timeline explicitly states that the week before Spring Break is not the time to start building. Whether students heed this warning remains to be seen.