4 ms·

I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert. Dieter Rams de

by cam_l 7y ago

I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert. Dieter Rams designs were absolutely based on trends, and trends which very much fell or of favour for twenty or thirty years. The fact that they are on trend again does not invalidate that. Nor does the fact that his designs in particular are remembered and copied because he was one of the best of the era. He was one of the best because he used an approach which was exploratory, multi-disciplined and human focused. (Tellingly, he was educated in interior design and architecture.) To suggest that graphic design is solved, is like saying a radio is solved. Technological changes coincide with changes in human understanding, taste, response and feedback. And then to use Dieter Rams as an example, because presumably you like his aesthetic, is to not understand design at all. Or certainly not his practice of it. On the other hand, i totally think someone could start a Rams framework (if it hasn't already been done). An unholy mixture of skeumorphic dials and material backgrounds. It could be a beautiful abomination.

spectramax 7y ago
"Dieter Rams designs were absolutely based on trends" - based on what observation? The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement. "He was one of the best because he used an approach which was exploratory, multi-disciplined and human focused. (Tellingly, he was educated in interior design and architecture.)" - I agree, and that is my take as well. "To suggest that graphic design is solved, is like saying a radio is solved. Technological changes coincide with changes in human understanding, taste, response and feedback." - I think I regret using the word "solved" (hence the quote marks), I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. Vignelli, Paul Rand, Unimark International, Eliot Noyes, and countless others - they all explored the contours of design but only to realize that principles of International style serve almost every purpose and will continue to do so in future - with new technology, the principles don't change. Its application changes. Even today, design houses such as C&G&H continues to excel whist Pentagram is flopping around in New York trends. Paula Sher is an absolute disaster (See LOC redesign by Pentagram). I don't mind good, well thought out constructive criticism, I would appreciate some more insight into your claims. "I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert." is not the tone I'd like to see on HN. I shall also add that my initial comment was rather tongue-in-cheek rant, I should have been more objective and sound. :-)
- cam_l 7y ago
  >not the tone I'd like to see on HN. Fair cop, though my comment was in direct response to yours. To be honest, the bile against design is an opinion I see voiced quite a lot here and elsewhere and it riles me a bit, so I did not take your comment as tongue in cheek. >The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement. Absolutely! You don't think this was a trend? Art Deco was a trend for 30 or 40 years, Art Nouveau maybe a hundred. The Bauhaus was an expression of renewal against the old world of decorative arts, and for a functional, scientific aesthetic. But maybe only true to this until Mies took over.. and he was more an aesthete than functionalist, and perhaps the one responsible for its dissemination across the world as the international style - at least in architecture. Anyway, point was the Rams trend was a revival of the Bauhaus style, clean, modern, healthy, wealthy, and white, against the skeumorphic timberwork of his contemporary's electronic product design. All at the height of the popular dissemination of modernism to the world. >I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. I took your use of "solved" to mean precisely this. I just disagree. Perhaps I am a little biased by my field (international style was less successful for architecture than graphic design, though far more widespread). The thing is, sure, design is partially about the possibilities for composition afforded by the medium and the physical, ergonomic and responsive characteristics of the user, but it is mostly about humanity. A chaotic mess of social feedback effects, a constantly shifting base of understanding and recognition, a wide variety of sizes, shapes, outlooks and interaction patterns. Most of design is manipulating an unseen virtual world of the senses, experiences, social interactions and virtuality in the minds of the users. Small wonder when faced with the scale of the actual problem (not to mention the leanness of economic incentives), lesser designers occasionally lose track of some of the harder rules of design. Even excluding the issue of taste, or as I like to think of it, prejudice ;)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- sizzle 7y ago
  For someone who claims to not be a designer, you sure are well versed in design. You are a great design critic, what is your background in that gave you all this knowledge? I'd love to level up my understanding of design...
sonnyblarney 7y ago
The issue is the conflation of the form and functional aspects of design. The 'Stripe gradient' on their home page, and a few other things are purely aesthetic, and frankly extraneous to the more functional aspects. Most of the 'guidelines' from Material were reasonably pragmatic, although very picky, beyond what is necessary in all but the most comprehensive apps with big budgets. There's nothing wrong with some aesthetic on a home page, and such things will always be trendy and evolving.
- turbinerneiter 7y ago
  I think this is a great point. Design has two layers. The first one is based on science. Ergonomics (i.e. edge of the screen is fast to reach with a mouse, color contrast, size of fonts, ...). The second layer is style. In the given constraint of color contrast, you use _these_ colors, ... The minimalist style often acts like it is on the first layer, but it is just style on top of ergonomics. It is a good design system. Because it is minimal, it is easier to not make first-layer-mistakes. It is timeless because the second layer is so thin as to not show the trends of the century. A lot of people think this is good - but I don't think it universally is. As long as you get the first layer right, being more wild on the second layer adds character. Being timeless can also be interpreted as being boring.
  - spectramax 7y ago
    I have a particular fascination for "boring" professor websites: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38619/why-are-professors-websites-so-ugly https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38619/why-are-p... Particularly the following comment: "In some scientific fields/cultures, a stylish website could be viewed as unnecessary or even pompous. In this view, the textual content of a website is the only thing that matters, and if you "need" to make your website stylish perhaps it lacks real substance. This is the same line of thought that supports simplicity in presentation with minimal graphics. I have encountered this especially in math and theoretical CS."
    - turbinerneiter 7y ago

by cam_l 7y ago

spectramax 7y ago

"Dieter Rams designs were absolutely based on trends" - based on what observation? The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement. "He was one of the best because he used an approach which was exploratory, multi-disciplined and human focused. (Tellingly, he was educated in interior design and architecture.)" - I agree, and that is my take as well. "To suggest that graphic design is solved, is like saying a radio is solved. Technological changes coincide with changes in human understanding, taste, response and feedback." - I think I regret using the word "solved" (hence the quote marks), I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. Vignelli, Paul Rand, Unimark International, Eliot Noyes, and countless others - they all explored the contours of design but only to realize that principles of International style serve almost every purpose and will continue to do so in future - with new technology, the principles don't change. Its application changes. Even today, design houses such as C&G&H continues to excel whist Pentagram is flopping around in New York trends. Paula Sher is an absolute disaster (See LOC redesign by Pentagram). I don't mind good, well thought out constructive criticism, I would appreciate some more insight into your claims. "I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert." is not the tone I'd like to see on HN. I shall also add that my initial comment was rather tongue-in-cheek rant, I should have been more objective and sound. :-)

cam_l 7y ago
>not the tone I'd like to see on HN. Fair cop, though my comment was in direct response to yours. To be honest, the bile against design is an opinion I see voiced quite a lot here and elsewhere and it riles me a bit, so I did not take your comment as tongue in cheek. >The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement. Absolutely! You don't think this was a trend? Art Deco was a trend for 30 or 40 years, Art Nouveau maybe a hundred. The Bauhaus was an expression of renewal against the old world of decorative arts, and for a functional, scientific aesthetic. But maybe only true to this until Mies took over.. and he was more an aesthete than functionalist, and perhaps the one responsible for its dissemination across the world as the international style - at least in architecture. Anyway, point was the Rams trend was a revival of the Bauhaus style, clean, modern, healthy, wealthy, and white, against the skeumorphic timberwork of his contemporary's electronic product design. All at the height of the popular dissemination of modernism to the world. >I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. I took your use of "solved" to mean precisely this. I just disagree. Perhaps I am a little biased by my field (international style was less successful for architecture than graphic design, though far more widespread). The thing is, sure, design is partially about the possibilities for composition afforded by the medium and the physical, ergonomic and responsive characteristics of the user, but it is mostly about humanity. A chaotic mess of social feedback effects, a constantly shifting base of understanding and recognition, a wide variety of sizes, shapes, outlooks and interaction patterns. Most of design is manipulating an unseen virtual world of the senses, experiences, social interactions and virtuality in the minds of the users. Small wonder when faced with the scale of the actual problem (not to mention the leanness of economic incentives), lesser designers occasionally lose track of some of the harder rules of design. Even excluding the issue of taste, or as I like to think of it, prejudice ;)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sizzle 7y ago
For someone who claims to not be a designer, you sure are well versed in design. You are a great design critic, what is your background in that gave you all this knowledge? I'd love to level up my understanding of design...

sonnyblarney 7y ago

The issue is the conflation of the form and functional aspects of design. The 'Stripe gradient' on their home page, and a few other things are purely aesthetic, and frankly extraneous to the more functional aspects. Most of the 'guidelines' from Material were reasonably pragmatic, although very picky, beyond what is necessary in all but the most comprehensive apps with big budgets. There's nothing wrong with some aesthetic on a home page, and such things will always be trendy and evolving.

turbinerneiter 7y ago
I think this is a great point. Design has two layers. The first one is based on science. Ergonomics (i.e. edge of the screen is fast to reach with a mouse, color contrast, size of fonts, ...). The second layer is style. In the given constraint of color contrast, you use _these_ colors, ... The minimalist style often acts like it is on the first layer, but it is just style on top of ergonomics. It is a good design system. Because it is minimal, it is easier to not make first-layer-mistakes. It is timeless because the second layer is so thin as to not show the trends of the century. A lot of people think this is good - but I don't think it universally is. As long as you get the first layer right, being more wild on the second layer adds character. Being timeless can also be interpreted as being boring.
- spectramax 7y ago
  I have a particular fascination for "boring" professor websites: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38619/why-are-professors-websites-so-ugly https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38619/why-are-p... Particularly the following comment: "In some scientific fields/cultures, a stylish website could be viewed as unnecessary or even pompous. In this view, the textual content of a website is the only thing that matters, and if you "need" to make your website stylish perhaps it lacks real substance. This is the same line of thought that supports simplicity in presentation with minimal graphics. I have encountered this especially in math and theoretical CS."
  - turbinerneiter 7y ago