When do we notice an object? Functioning objects often feel like an invisible extension of our actions. As we get used to an object, its use becomes instinctive. Yet these subconscious motions are often interrupted by effort. When something resists, strains, or begins to fail, like a box sagging under weight, it reclaims our attention.
Consider a standard corrugated cardboard box.
This box is uniform, with a clear purpose and a simple design. Yet built into this simplicity is an assumption: every box should perform predictably. This is where structural design meets human variability. The box may be standardised, but the world never is.
Designing Better Boxes
Corrugated boxes are average, and this is intentional. The ubiquity of this design is formulated for both human averages and technical advantages against environmental differences. Behind its simplicity are unseen engineering rules that improve handling, stacking, strength and weight tolerance.
Better Boxes Are Made for the Human Body:
Off-the-shelf packaging plays to ergonomic averages: the range most people can safely lift, grip and manoeuvre close to the body. Its structural integrity is influenced by:
- Board Thickness
- Material Composition
- Fold Accuracy
- Flute Structure
- Assembly Method
A box may be technically sound, but poorly designed grips or obstructed vision can cause it to fail during use. Effective packaging design prioritises the real needs of people carrying boxes, not just technical specifications.
Better Boxes Are Easy to ‘Read’:
Can you reach around or see over the box when lifted? If the answer to this is no, then the user can assume that carrying this box is not possible. We evaluate what we can handle with our own senses and memory, and, for the user, reading cues is more important than having their specific needs accommodated. It is not just about handling, but also the cognitive approach to handling. Simple, repeatable box design makes this reading process easier, if not instantaneous.
However, the simpler and more universal a design is, the wider the range of possible real-world outcomes.
When Boxes Are Hard to Handle
Despite being optimised for handling, the variation within these boxes is managed by the people who carry them. Regardless of the damaged or weakened appearance, if you lifted the box, you probably thought you could do it.
We navigate instability through sensation in real time. When faced with a challenging box, the handler instinctively compensates:
- Motor Prediction
- Protective Reflex
- Postural Adjustment
- Object Integration (treating the box as part of one’s body)
We Protect What We Carry:
Drop the box if it’s too heavy, but that’s easier said than done.
A sudden shift in weight, or the need to readjust to prevent a collapsing box, can easily cause strain or injury. However, we prioritise controlled action over immediate relief rather than dropping the object. The brain’s internal sense of the body’s boundaries temporarily absorbs an object into our body schema, and we protect what we hold as if it were a part of us. This is object-care: our instinct to preserve what we have incorporated into our sense of self.
We Overestimate Capability:
Even when we miscalculate our own strength, we commit to carrying something too heavy for us. This over-lifting confidence can arise from predictive coding and the brain’s expectation that it can manage the action it initiates. Before feedback arrives, the motor system commits to a force. If the prediction is wrong, the correction comes too late. Yet because the object has become part of our action plan, we override the signal.
Strain Feels Meaningful:
Interestingly, we also enjoy lifting more weight than we can. The harder the lift, the more the brain validates the act as meaningful. This loop of confidence, correction and control defines much of our haptic interaction with the world. The effort itself, not necessarily the results, acts as a reward.
When boxes become damaged, overloaded, or difficult to handle, we often assume our adaptive instincts will compensate. Yet at a certain threshold, these failures shift from tolerable inconvenience to an immovable obstacle. When our haptic feedback fails to respond as anticipated, or human adjustment can’t override, does this make the box broken?
Finding ’Broken’ Boxes
A box does not simply fail; failure is a relationship between design intent and real-world use. Variability comes from environmental exposure, repeated handling, stacking, storage and improvisation. Many “failures” are signs of a system functioning, not breaking.
A box’s performance shifts with handling and environment. Some become soft in damp storage. Some bulge because they were overfilled. Some settle, compress or loosen in transit. None of these conditions means the box is broken – it has adapted to its environment more than the design anticipated.
Failure patterns reveal how the box is really used. A weakened seam, a bulging edge, or a softened corner is feedback — a record of unplanned conditions that were not accounted for in the original design.
Finding these points of strain is more valuable than preventing them entirely. When we treat imperfect boxes as diagnostic evidence rather than defects, we move from universal assumptions to context-aware insight.
Better Broken Boxes
Is brokenness in the box, or in the way we expect it to behave?
Products are designed for what is inevitable, not for what can be predicted.“Inevitable” refers to the real end-use journey: the operations, handling conditions, safety factors, and ergonomic tolerances understood through evidence – not assumptions. Designing from prediction alone becomes subjective. It risks over-engineering, where eliminating every potential weakness also eliminates user agency and interaction.
When packaging is imperfect -heavy, awkward, torn, or unpredictable – the user becomes part of the stabilising system. They lift differently. They strategise. They adapt. In those moments, they’re not just users, but problem-solvers.
When design tries to eliminate every vulnerability, we risk over-engineering. And when failure eventually happens, it feels abrupt because the design never prepared the user for change.
In Conclusion
Human adaptability is part of the system, and a box never operates alone. It exists in a feedback system with hands, posture, fatigue, grip, intuition and immediate decision-making. Good design anticipates this, not by erasing difficulty, but by ensuring difficulty is interpretable and manageable.
Better packaging doesn’t come from preventing every flaw or sealing every gap. It comes from understanding how and where boxes struggle when handled by real people in real conditions. Predictive fixes narrow possibilities; observed failures reveal patterns. When design leaves room for interpretation and adaptation, users remain engaged participants in the system, and not passive endpoints.
In the end, the pursuit of perfection in packaging is not needed. The most resilient packaging isn’t the box that never fails, but the one whose failures are readable, recoverable, and informative.
Ontopack 
Leave a comment