Core77 roundup: 11 designs across safety, art and controls

By Sophie Lindqvist

Core77’s weekly roundup for Nov. 9–13, 2026 gathered 11 projects that move beyond the screen and into kitchens, gardens, restaurants, workshops, vehicles and display spaces. The selection ranges from safety equipment to configurable controls, but its common thread is physical behavior: what a person touches, wears, turns, opens or walks against, and what that action changes.

Which tools change everyday work?

• Firemill: Propellor, an industrial design firm, created the Firemill. Core77 describes it as a “food-safe, residue-free fire extinguisher for the kitchen.” Those two properties define measurable requirements: the tool must perform its extinguishing function without compromising food safety or leaving residue. The roundup reports no extinguishing tests, capacity or placement guidance, so performance and kitchen workflow remain unverified.

• Lehners Seeder: This manually operated automatic seed-sowing contraption gives a person control of the motion while the mechanism performs the sowing. That division of labor makes repeatability and effort the relevant tests. The source reports no seed spacing, required force, operating duration or results from actual planting beds.

• Loupe Light: Industrial designer Andrew Ferrier’s Loupe Light targets dim restaurants. Its relevant outcomes are task visibility and glare, not appearance alone. The roundup gives no brightness level, beam pattern, controls or measurements, so it cannot establish how the light performs under the conditions it intends to address.

What must users physically do?

• Ascender gadgets: The roundup’s devices let a user walk up a vertical rope. The action is simple to state, but performance would depend on load, rope compatibility, security and the effort required for repeated climbs. The source supplies none of those specifications or test results, leaving the safety and efficiency of the interaction unproven.

Fake dragonflies: A chemical-free anti-mosquito solution arrives as wearable fake dragonflies. Wearing the objects makes comfort and continued use part of the outcome, rather than a secondary concern. The source names no material, mechanism, coverage or field trial, and offers no basis for judging mosquito protection.

Where does physical form carry the idea?

• Chris Bly’s plotter art: The plotting machine serves as the instrument that produces the work. The craft questions then concern line quality, repeatability and the artist’s control over the tool. The source does not describe the plotted image, its scale, materials or exhibition context, so it documents the medium rather than a complete production method.

• Expanding and Collapsing Cube Books: Kit Davey’s books make geometry an operating principle. Their names promise structural change, not merely a cube-shaped cover. Useful measures would show whether the transformation is legible, how much force it takes and whether each book remains usable at every stage. The roundup provides no dimensions or user testing.

• Dynamic egret: An unnamed artist demonstrates how he built a giant dynamic egret, and the roundup frames it as the best, albeit belated, Halloween costume. Construction and movement have to support a worn performance, not merely produce a striking image. The demonstration reveals the build process; the source does not identify the materials, moving parts or artist.

• Symbiotic 3026: The numbered object is an indoor beehive. Bringing the hive inside makes installation, colony access and human safety practical requirements. The source gives no dimensions, ventilation arrangement, maintenance routine or colony data, leaving the hive’s operational requirements unspecified.

What survives from an earlier product?

• 1979 Walkman headphones: Sony brings back the design of its 1979 wired Walkman headphones. The date anchors the object to a specific earlier product form, while the cable remains an unavoidable part of the physical interaction. The source does not say whether Sony plans production, whether a modern release changes the original design or what it will cost.

Can customization improve the car interface?

• Formula 2030: Polestar’s new concept gives users configurable physical buttons, and Core77’s headline asks whether that choice has gone “too far.” Configuration may place selected actions under direct touch control, but it can also add setup work and reduce consistency between control layouts. The source names no buttons, functions or study results, so usability cannot be settled from appearance alone.

Taken together, the 11 projects make behavior tangible. A user operates an object, and each interaction either removes work or changes the result. That makes missing performance data consequential rather than decorative.

The next useful step for each project is the same: test repeatability, effort, safety and task completion with intended users, because this roundup presents changed outcomes more often than measured ones.