In this digital journal, I will try to explain the principles which have influenced me, and how they have changed my views on design. I will also try to critically analyse these principles, and come to a conclusion of how much I agree with them.
I have only recently learnt about the principles of design through my time studying at university. Before then, my views on design were much more vague and undefined. With the help of this journal and a critical essay I recently wrote on ‘Why I Design’, I am starting to realise what I want from the design world, and what I am able to give back. Obviously as a nineteen year old student, I do not have, or necessarily want, a clear cut view on design, as I believe this should be gained through experience, but I am starting gain a greater insight into my design philosophy.
I have chosen two principles which have affected both my design process, and critical views as a designer. These two principles which I shall discuss are ‘Form Follows Function’ and ‘Inclusive Design’. I should say however that although these have influenced my thoughts and views on design, I do not regard either of them necessarily as principles; I regard ‘form follows function’ as a by-product of design itself. It is an ideal which has been created by striving to make a design a product which excels aesthetically and practically.
Also, I regard ‘inclusive design’ as more of a prerequisite of good product design. In the modern world of diverse cultures and mass social communication, products with a needlessly exclusive market simply go against common sense in terms of design, not to mention the rapidly increasing average age and population growth in the western world means that economically, the over 50 generation are the most likely to spend their time and money on new products.
After I have explained and critically analysed these two principles, I will also reflect on my recent essay for this module on the reasons why I design. I have set this journal out in posts in this blog, so please feel free to comment if you wish.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Form Follows Function
The main principle that has affected my design process the most is the balance between form and function. One of the main reasons I began to take a serious interest in design was due to asking myself the question; “How could I make this product look/work better?”
Over the past years however, this principle has been most definitely forced into my conscious, once I began studying at university. Whilst studying the BSc Product Design course, the classes taught have definitely helped me gain the knowledge needed to analyse the viability of a product, and to take more care into making sure it would be functional. This has helped my design process, as I am now much more conscious of the different stages between a conceptual idea or notion, to a working prototype.
Whilst reviewing the principle that is ‘Form Follows Function’, I must say I disagree with the word follows in the respect that this is only viable some of the time. The term, coined by Louis Sullivan, was corrected by Frank Lloyd Wright later on, who said “Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union”. This is the view I will address; one in which form and function should themselves be equal.
It has to be said however that although I work with this balance in mind, I also believe that an unbiased, equilibrium between form and function is theoretical, and can never be successfully achieved; I believe it is an ideal held by some designers that can never be fully applied, but only emulated to the best of the designer’s ability.
This is due to two reasons; firstly, the designer must overall, consciously or subconsciously, decide on what is more important, the aesthetics or the functionality of the product. There will always be a case of the designer having to sacrifice one for the other, for if this did not occur, then the perfect product will have been designed.
This brings me to my second reason, perfection and imperfection in terms of form and functionality, are relative to the criticism of the user. Harshly or not, there will always be some part of a product to which the critics will ‘nitpick’ and find fault.
The perfect form can be deliberated endlessly, with no definitive conclusion brought to light, as it is all based on the opinion of the user. This can also be said for functionality, albeit less so, as the form of a product provokes more emotion than that of its functionality.
Also, one of the main things to bear in mind about this principle is how the form can affect the function and vice versa. There are times when one will be the cause for the other. For example, Raymond Loewy’s “streamline style” shows perfectly how aesthetical improvements brought about functional ones. The ‘sheathing’ of mechanical appliances such as his commission for Gestetner to modernise the duplicating machine showed this, as a cover over the mechanical components of the machine not only looked aesthetically pleasing (especially in the industrialised, ‘bare cogs’ 1920’s US), but also had a practicality to shield the components from dust an dirt, and shield the user from excess oils and inks.
This is important to bear in mind when considering the form follows function principle, as the two can crossover, to work in tandem or even to conflict each other, as the form of a product can vastly hinder its practicality. This could be a physical or mental issue for the user. The form of a product can affect the product for worse structurally, meaning the aesthetics of the design could mean the product is more prone to physical failure. For instance the first commercial airliner, the De Havilland Comet, had square windows, which later proved to be structurally unsound due to metal fatigue failure, resulting in the change to oval windows used in aircraft today.
The form of the product could also have a negative impact on its function in a psychological manner; confusing layouts due to the poor mapping of the components on a product can impede the usability. In the same way, a form which is radically different to its predecessors can have a negative impact on the users understanding of the product. For instance the standard computer keyboard (the “QWERTY” keyboard) has been taken from its original context of the typewriter as a form of evolution in terms of typing appliance. The original typewriter keyboard layout was so, to stop the letter keys that would most likely follow one another from jamming when pressed in quick succession. Obviously this is not a problem with computers, and even though there are more efficient layouts for a keyboard (notably the ‘Dvorak’ keyboard layout used for professional fast typists), they have never been widely accepted, due to the general consumer public’s resistance to change.
As discussed in my critical essay, modern technological advancement has played a big part in how this principle is perceived. As electronic equipment becomes smaller and the consumer market gets bigger, more effort is being focused on the aesthetics of the product and not just its new features. This shows that form and function must be both considered by the designer, as technology that was once confined to the office or business is now available to everyone and to be used everywhere. The computer for example was once a cumbersome piece of equipment only used in large businesses, however now, with the rapid progression of technology, laptop computers can be used in any room of the user’s house, with limited restrictions. This has led to the acknowledgment of aesthetics in computer design, for example, the highly popular ‘Mac book’ laptop computer by Apple comes as standard in a solid white colour, meaning that it can be used in any room, and not look out of place.
Again, the laptop computer can be used as an example of how the layout and visual form has improved the functionality for the user. Despite having a far superior range of commands and programs than that of the early computers, the layout and mapping of these tool on the laptop computer’s interface has meant that compared to the early computer, the laptop is, in effect, easier to use. Older computers required complex coding to be typed in by the user, whereas now, the use of simple iconography is used to signify with the user, the nature of the tool or the program.
In my opinion however, the main aspect of this principle is that a product that relies heavily on form can be admired, yet a product that relies heavily on function is usually due to necessity, which I think raises an interesting point for me as a designer; how much is the product I am designing going to be used?
If a product is to be used frequently, it stands to reason that is should be practical first, and visually pleasing second, however if the product has a more ornamental feature, then aesthetics should be key.
As well as frequency of use, this should also be applied to the number of people using the product. The greater number and variety of people using the product, the greater care should be taken to make the design as functional, and as easy to use as possible.
Over the past years however, this principle has been most definitely forced into my conscious, once I began studying at university. Whilst studying the BSc Product Design course, the classes taught have definitely helped me gain the knowledge needed to analyse the viability of a product, and to take more care into making sure it would be functional. This has helped my design process, as I am now much more conscious of the different stages between a conceptual idea or notion, to a working prototype.
Whilst reviewing the principle that is ‘Form Follows Function’, I must say I disagree with the word follows in the respect that this is only viable some of the time. The term, coined by Louis Sullivan, was corrected by Frank Lloyd Wright later on, who said “Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union”. This is the view I will address; one in which form and function should themselves be equal.
It has to be said however that although I work with this balance in mind, I also believe that an unbiased, equilibrium between form and function is theoretical, and can never be successfully achieved; I believe it is an ideal held by some designers that can never be fully applied, but only emulated to the best of the designer’s ability.
This is due to two reasons; firstly, the designer must overall, consciously or subconsciously, decide on what is more important, the aesthetics or the functionality of the product. There will always be a case of the designer having to sacrifice one for the other, for if this did not occur, then the perfect product will have been designed.
This brings me to my second reason, perfection and imperfection in terms of form and functionality, are relative to the criticism of the user. Harshly or not, there will always be some part of a product to which the critics will ‘nitpick’ and find fault.
The perfect form can be deliberated endlessly, with no definitive conclusion brought to light, as it is all based on the opinion of the user. This can also be said for functionality, albeit less so, as the form of a product provokes more emotion than that of its functionality.
Also, one of the main things to bear in mind about this principle is how the form can affect the function and vice versa. There are times when one will be the cause for the other. For example, Raymond Loewy’s “streamline style” shows perfectly how aesthetical improvements brought about functional ones. The ‘sheathing’ of mechanical appliances such as his commission for Gestetner to modernise the duplicating machine showed this, as a cover over the mechanical components of the machine not only looked aesthetically pleasing (especially in the industrialised, ‘bare cogs’ 1920’s US), but also had a practicality to shield the components from dust an dirt, and shield the user from excess oils and inks.
This is important to bear in mind when considering the form follows function principle, as the two can crossover, to work in tandem or even to conflict each other, as the form of a product can vastly hinder its practicality. This could be a physical or mental issue for the user. The form of a product can affect the product for worse structurally, meaning the aesthetics of the design could mean the product is more prone to physical failure. For instance the first commercial airliner, the De Havilland Comet, had square windows, which later proved to be structurally unsound due to metal fatigue failure, resulting in the change to oval windows used in aircraft today.
The form of the product could also have a negative impact on its function in a psychological manner; confusing layouts due to the poor mapping of the components on a product can impede the usability. In the same way, a form which is radically different to its predecessors can have a negative impact on the users understanding of the product. For instance the standard computer keyboard (the “QWERTY” keyboard) has been taken from its original context of the typewriter as a form of evolution in terms of typing appliance. The original typewriter keyboard layout was so, to stop the letter keys that would most likely follow one another from jamming when pressed in quick succession. Obviously this is not a problem with computers, and even though there are more efficient layouts for a keyboard (notably the ‘Dvorak’ keyboard layout used for professional fast typists), they have never been widely accepted, due to the general consumer public’s resistance to change.
As discussed in my critical essay, modern technological advancement has played a big part in how this principle is perceived. As electronic equipment becomes smaller and the consumer market gets bigger, more effort is being focused on the aesthetics of the product and not just its new features. This shows that form and function must be both considered by the designer, as technology that was once confined to the office or business is now available to everyone and to be used everywhere. The computer for example was once a cumbersome piece of equipment only used in large businesses, however now, with the rapid progression of technology, laptop computers can be used in any room of the user’s house, with limited restrictions. This has led to the acknowledgment of aesthetics in computer design, for example, the highly popular ‘Mac book’ laptop computer by Apple comes as standard in a solid white colour, meaning that it can be used in any room, and not look out of place.
Again, the laptop computer can be used as an example of how the layout and visual form has improved the functionality for the user. Despite having a far superior range of commands and programs than that of the early computers, the layout and mapping of these tool on the laptop computer’s interface has meant that compared to the early computer, the laptop is, in effect, easier to use. Older computers required complex coding to be typed in by the user, whereas now, the use of simple iconography is used to signify with the user, the nature of the tool or the program.
In my opinion however, the main aspect of this principle is that a product that relies heavily on form can be admired, yet a product that relies heavily on function is usually due to necessity, which I think raises an interesting point for me as a designer; how much is the product I am designing going to be used?
If a product is to be used frequently, it stands to reason that is should be practical first, and visually pleasing second, however if the product has a more ornamental feature, then aesthetics should be key.
As well as frequency of use, this should also be applied to the number of people using the product. The greater number and variety of people using the product, the greater care should be taken to make the design as functional, and as easy to use as possible.
Inclusive Design
Another principle which interests me a great deal and has influenced my design process is inclusive design.
It was only in my second year of university that I began to take an interest in inclusive or universal design, but I think my perceptions on this principle show that it has its base in a ‘common sense’ attitude to design.
The term universal design was defined by the founder of The Centre of Universal Design, Ron Mace, as “The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design…”
This is the reason then, why I think it is based on a common sense attitude. An attitude in fact which makes it, in my eyes, necessary in any good design.
With a broader spectrum of households nowadays, plus an increase in the over 50’s population means that there is a great need for not only products that can be used by children, adults and the elderly, but products that still look and feel good doing so.
The demand for inclusive products is growing, as the older, over 50s generation now have the largest amount of time and money to spare. The main target market for household appliances is quickly shifting to an older age group, which means that to appeal to a market with possible physical and mental impairments. Products with universality in mind are moving into the designer’s conscious.
It was only in my second year of university that I began to take an interest in inclusive or universal design, but I think my perceptions on this principle show that it has its base in a ‘common sense’ attitude to design.
The term universal design was defined by the founder of The Centre of Universal Design, Ron Mace, as “The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design…”
This is the reason then, why I think it is based on a common sense attitude. An attitude in fact which makes it, in my eyes, necessary in any good design.
With a broader spectrum of households nowadays, plus an increase in the over 50’s population means that there is a great need for not only products that can be used by children, adults and the elderly, but products that still look and feel good doing so.
The demand for inclusive products is growing, as the older, over 50s generation now have the largest amount of time and money to spare. The main target market for household appliances is quickly shifting to an older age group, which means that to appeal to a market with possible physical and mental impairments. Products with universality in mind are moving into the designer’s conscious.
Reflection on Critical Essay
As discussed beforehand, I have recently completed a critical essay entitles “Why I Design”. This essay discussed my reasons for studying design, as well as discussing the principles ‘Form follows function’ and ‘Inclusive Design’, which I hold in high interest and are two of the reasons why I design.
I feel as if the essay was a step up to this digital journal, as in the critical essay I discussed the two principles as reasons as to why I design, whilst in this journal I discussed how those same two principles were reasons as to how I design.
In the essay, I held these principles as points of interest; however I did not show how I had used these principles. I feel that the critical essay was an important point for me in terms of design, because it made me think about why I enjoy design and why it interests me.
In the essay, I gave one of the reason I design (in terms of the form follows function principle) as “I want to see this evolution in design - integrating mechanical and electrical technology with aesthetics - to progress further, until there is no ‘either/or’ debate between the two; until they simply exist together, a product working effectively whilst still looking and feeling good to the user.”
It is now, after thinking more about the principle that I realise that there probably never will be a perfectly equal coexistence, however I still stand by my reason, as I think to design to the best of my ability, I must strive to get as close as possible. Not in some Don Quixote-esque dream world, but so I can find my design limitations, and see how close I can get, to the perfect design.
In terms of the inclusive design principle, I gave my reason as “The user is also another reason I design, as the emphasis on inclusive design in the last decade has highlighted the need for products to be simpler and more intuitive to use.”
This however has not changed at all. I still see a very big need for simplified products, especially in the domestic appliance market. Personally I think this reasoning will be the basis of my design philosophy as I grow and experience more of the design world.
Although I still do not have a design philosophy, the recent work in this module has shown me that these two principles should be the basis for my design work, as I will constantly ask myself how my designs relate to the principles discussed above.
I feel as if the essay was a step up to this digital journal, as in the critical essay I discussed the two principles as reasons as to why I design, whilst in this journal I discussed how those same two principles were reasons as to how I design.
In the essay, I held these principles as points of interest; however I did not show how I had used these principles. I feel that the critical essay was an important point for me in terms of design, because it made me think about why I enjoy design and why it interests me.
In the essay, I gave one of the reason I design (in terms of the form follows function principle) as “I want to see this evolution in design - integrating mechanical and electrical technology with aesthetics - to progress further, until there is no ‘either/or’ debate between the two; until they simply exist together, a product working effectively whilst still looking and feeling good to the user.”
It is now, after thinking more about the principle that I realise that there probably never will be a perfectly equal coexistence, however I still stand by my reason, as I think to design to the best of my ability, I must strive to get as close as possible. Not in some Don Quixote-esque dream world, but so I can find my design limitations, and see how close I can get, to the perfect design.
In terms of the inclusive design principle, I gave my reason as “The user is also another reason I design, as the emphasis on inclusive design in the last decade has highlighted the need for products to be simpler and more intuitive to use.”
This however has not changed at all. I still see a very big need for simplified products, especially in the domestic appliance market. Personally I think this reasoning will be the basis of my design philosophy as I grow and experience more of the design world.
Although I still do not have a design philosophy, the recent work in this module has shown me that these two principles should be the basis for my design work, as I will constantly ask myself how my designs relate to the principles discussed above.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)