3 ms·

> Good design is unobtrusive. Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore

> Good design is unobtrusive. Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression. Excuse my French, but fuck Dieter Rams. I certainly understand this viewpoint, and I have no problem with folks that adhere to it, but my problem is with stating as some sort of axiom, with no evidence or reason, that "Products fulfilling a purpose are neither decorative objects nor works of art." Humans have built things that are both functional and beautiful since culture first existed, and there is nothing wrong with designing products with a strong visual aesthetic viewpoint. If we all followed Dieter Rams' silly advice, all of our computers would still be boring beige boxes, maybe covered in stickers "for the user's self-expression." Note I say this while agreeing with the latter part of your post. I'm not a fan of this particular design - it feels kitschy and shallow in the same way that Hollywood "hacker" movies show terminals that look like 3D game worlds. But that's just my personal opinion, and I don't fault people for feeling the exact opposite. I do fault people for saying that you shouldn't be allowed to try, and if you do that you are "not following principles of good design."

CharlesW 3y ago
> I do fault people for saying that you shouldn't be allowed to try… Can you remind me of the quote where Dieter Rams says that you shouldn't be allowed to try?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I am responding to the author that, at least in my take, appears to be stating that these are "anointed" "good design principles", and that if you don't adhere to Rams' singular viewpoint, you are by definition engaging in bad design.
  - dchest 3y ago
    The exact words I typed are "If you read these principles and reverse them...". These are Dieter's principles — a product design approach that he believes leads to good design. I pointed out that if you apply the opposite of them, you get this product.
throwanem 3y ago
Rams' functionalism is itself a reaction to the ornateness for its own sake that characterized a lot of design in decades prior. But these days functionalism itself seems to be the hegemonic school of thought - consider Apple, for example, which hews closely to functionalist precepts by deliberate intent, and provides a lot of cues for other companies. So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. That said, I agree the aesthetic here under discussion is pretty miserable. Ostentatious CNC tool marks might impress some, but to me it just says they couldn't be bothered to finish manufacturing the thing before they shipped it, and it shares with brutalism the trait of being deliberately unwelcoming to the senses as a way of demanding attention be paid to itself.
- codemac 3y ago
  The irony being of course, that huge flat slabs are not somehow inherently more "functional" than something with a handle, or a screen that doesn't break, or a back that doesn't scratch etc. We just kind of hand-wavy announce that anything boring, sleek, or rectangular is "functional". It's not.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    I didn't say "functional"; I said "functionalist" and "functionalism". The latter terms refer to a school of industrial design that aspires to its particular definition of the former. I can respect the motivation behind this; I favor midcentury modern furniture not least precisely because it doesn't insist on itself with an excess of ornament, as Rams also inveighs against. But there's a seasonality in any new idea; after the first generation for whom it's revolutionary comes a second for whom it's the status quo ante, and most of those raised with any norm will defend and uphold it for its own sake just because it's what they know to be "normal", whether or not the idea itself or its application still makes sense. Hence the canonization of an aesthetic based originally around the idea that no aesthetic deserves to be canonized.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. I agree with everything you've said, but would just point out that the pendulum has perhaps started swinging in the other direction: a lot of folks in the design world are starting to push back against the associated minimalist/functionalist aesthetic that has taken over much of the world: it can make our built environments feel sterile, boring, and robotic.
ethbr1 3y ago
> If we all followed Dieter Rams' silly advice, all of our computers would still be boring beige boxes, maybe covered in stickers "for the user's self-expression." Parent should have quoted the entire set, in which good design... - is innovative - makes a product useful - is aesthetic - makes a product understandable - is unobtrusive - is honest - is long-lasting - is thorough down to the last detail - is environmentally friendly - is minimal Dieter Rams and the Ulm functionalist school of thought differed from the immediately preceding minimalists ("less is more") by accepting that design exists and needs to be great on multiple planes: e.g. function, aesthetic, psychological, etc. (many of which are human and subjective!) To chisel functionalism in industrial design down to something I can fit in a HN comment, my takeaway was that their central tenant was 'Have a specific useful vision, that values your user above yourself, and optimize everything in service to that vision.' With the understanding that designed objects aren't paintings and must have a utility component. PS: I would also have a long disagreement about fanciful graphical representations of computing in visual media as a metaphor intended to convey an experience to a computer-illiterate audience, versus a kitschy misunderstanding of reality. ;-) Technical advisors and directors aren't idiots. You think it's a coincidence that the primary method of interacting with a computer in the Star Trek universe is voice-first?

CharlesW 3y ago

> I do fault people for saying that you shouldn't be allowed to try… Can you remind me of the quote where Dieter Rams says that you shouldn't be allowed to try?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I am responding to the author that, at least in my take, appears to be stating that these are "anointed" "good design principles", and that if you don't adhere to Rams' singular viewpoint, you are by definition engaging in bad design.
- dchest 3y ago
  The exact words I typed are "If you read these principles and reverse them...". These are Dieter's principles — a product design approach that he believes leads to good design. I pointed out that if you apply the opposite of them, you get this product.

throwanem 3y ago

Rams' functionalism is itself a reaction to the ornateness for its own sake that characterized a lot of design in decades prior. But these days functionalism itself seems to be the hegemonic school of thought - consider Apple, for example, which hews closely to functionalist precepts by deliberate intent, and provides a lot of cues for other companies. So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. That said, I agree the aesthetic here under discussion is pretty miserable. Ostentatious CNC tool marks might impress some, but to me it just says they couldn't be bothered to finish manufacturing the thing before they shipped it, and it shares with brutalism the trait of being deliberately unwelcoming to the senses as a way of demanding attention be paid to itself.

codemac 3y ago
The irony being of course, that huge flat slabs are not somehow inherently more "functional" than something with a handle, or a screen that doesn't break, or a back that doesn't scratch etc. We just kind of hand-wavy announce that anything boring, sleek, or rectangular is "functional". It's not.
- throwanem 3y ago
  I didn't say "functional"; I said "functionalist" and "functionalism". The latter terms refer to a school of industrial design that aspires to its particular definition of the former. I can respect the motivation behind this; I favor midcentury modern furniture not least precisely because it doesn't insist on itself with an excess of ornament, as Rams also inveighs against. But there's a seasonality in any new idea; after the first generation for whom it's revolutionary comes a second for whom it's the status quo ante, and most of those raised with any norm will defend and uphold it for its own sake just because it's what they know to be "normal", whether or not the idea itself or its application still makes sense. Hence the canonization of an aesthetic based originally around the idea that no aesthetic deserves to be canonized.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> So a reaction to what was itself once the challenger and is now the incumbent seems reasonable. I agree with everything you've said, but would just point out that the pendulum has perhaps started swinging in the other direction: a lot of folks in the design world are starting to push back against the associated minimalist/functionalist aesthetic that has taken over much of the world: it can make our built environments feel sterile, boring, and robotic.

ethbr1 3y ago

> If we all followed Dieter Rams' silly advice, all of our computers would still be boring beige boxes, maybe covered in stickers "for the user's self-expression." Parent should have quoted the entire set, in which good design... - is innovative - makes a product useful - is aesthetic - makes a product understandable - is unobtrusive - is honest - is long-lasting - is thorough down to the last detail - is environmentally friendly - is minimal Dieter Rams and the Ulm functionalist school of thought differed from the immediately preceding minimalists ("less is more") by accepting that design exists and needs to be great on multiple planes: e.g. function, aesthetic, psychological, etc. (many of which are human and subjective!) To chisel functionalism in industrial design down to something I can fit in a HN comment, my takeaway was that their central tenant was 'Have a specific useful vision, that values your user above yourself, and optimize everything in service to that vision.' With the understanding that designed objects aren't paintings and must have a utility component. PS: I would also have a long disagreement about fanciful graphical representations of computing in visual media as a metaphor intended to convey an experience to a computer-illiterate audience, versus a kitschy misunderstanding of reality. ;-) Technical advisors and directors aren't idiots. You think it's a coincidence that the primary method of interacting with a computer in the Star Trek universe is voice-first?