How Much Intelligence Does Good Design Really Require?
Of the definitions for art, design, and decoration I published back in the days, I do believe in the statement that design works – or has to work, respectively – the most. However, one thing’s still challenging me, and that is how much intelligence good, working design requires. I’m basing this question on the assumption that a design cannot live without some vocabulary and a certain context.
Let’s take a simple – I hope not too simple – example: How would I design a door for people who don’t know what a door is?
This means, is it legitimate to assume that people know the concept of doors? If it is, shouldn’t I expect the door to fail if I install it in a place that is frequented by people who don’t know doors? Would the design then work? Would I, in this context, merely “decorate” a building, or yet impose an obstacle to people, which would be even worse? In essence, how do assumptions influence the quality of a design?
The key point here can be applied to almost anything I think. I might be fine with the conclusion that design might very well make assumptions and thus fail if respective criteria aren’t met, but I’m not a 100 % sure, at least not when a then necessary threshold would have to kick in; I’m not sure either if we’re thus to discover some kind of “floating border” between design and decoration, removing art from the equation.
Is that all too obvious, or what do you think?
Read More
Enjoy the most popular posts, probably including:
Comments
-
On April 28, 2009, 18:23 CEST, enj said:
But doesn’t the best design teach people how it works? Maybe we can’t rely on people’s assumptions but most humans will at least experiment a little bit.
I’m thinking of things like the mouse, things that when you try it once you immediately get it.Speaking of doors, there are many kinds of doors, and maybe a door knob isn’t the most intuitive thing. Have you ever been in an Asian household where they hang a curtain of beads in an entrance. Is that decoration or function?
-
On April 28, 2009, 19:52 CEST, Jeremy said:
People who don’t know the mere concept of a door won’t get your door, no matter how well you design it.
However, a door is well designed if it’s use is easily taught, preferably by showing. And if other doors function the same way, the design becomes intuitively understandable.
Nothing can be intuitive from it’s very beginning. Probably everything in life has to be learned, except learning itself and our instincts.
I think assumptions are a necessary starting point for every design. With experience the assumptions get better. But they’re still assumptions. That’s why design is an iterative process and that’s why User Centered Design exists. And there’s a lot more to it than just intelligence.
-
On April 28, 2009, 23:53 CEST, jura said:
A great design is typically over thought. When you look at some of the most successful and widely used designs they are mere tables. A coding art that is so minimalistic the user not only comprehends how to use the site, but even can decipher the code.
Look at Google, Drudge, Etc. (I am stateside) they are both very simple yet popular designs. Maybe all of the flashy and complex designs are really not needed nor wanted. Maybe we are focused too much on complex showy designs that we are overlooking the logic to how a users mind really interprets a page. And what entices them to return.
Love this post….now I am thinking about a total redesign of my free 5 minute WP upload. haha : )
-
On April 29, 2009, 18:08 CEST, Richard Morton - Accessible Web said:
The idea of designing a door for people who don’t know what a door is is an interesting concept, and of course it happens in the web world as well. Take the example of tag clouds. The first time I saw one I had no idea what it was and it was quite baffling, but a little thought and experimentation led me to an understanding and a realisation that this was quite a useful tool. My background in web accessibility also led me to think about how it could be made accessible to blind users, in other words how the emphasis on more popular tags could be achieved by means of a numbered list.
Going back to the real world, the first time I went to Germany and encountered a window that opened both forwards and sideways (by means of an ingenious hinge), caused me some confusion, and I thought that I might have broken the window. Again though, after a short while I understood and appreciated the benefits of this radically different design. -
On April 30, 2009, 7:50 CEST, Lucian Tucker said:
The best designs are immediately understandable to its users. If I were designing a door for someone who didn’t know what a door was, I would create a door with no handle that could be pushed from the left side or the right side. Then, I would either have a sign that said “push,” or perhaps better, a handprint on the left or right side.
The real question here I suppose is do we know what a door is? Even simpler, what is a chair? Something you sit on? You can also sit on a box. Is that then a chair? If we create a solid box and market it as a chair is it then a chair? These are classic Greek philosophical questions with answers I do not know. But to use a chair we do not need to understand what does and does not constitute a chair–just that the object is sturdy enough to support our weight.
But when we design, we are not designing for everyone. We are designing for a particular audience whether that be web users, or for businessmen, or pregnant woman, etc. My point is that good design doesn’t have to be immediately understandable to everyone, just to the simplest of its core users.
How much intelligence does good design really require? None. Well, I suppose a basic understanding of the world… at least the ability to understand.
-
On May 3, 2009, 10:33 CEST, Jens Meiert said:
enj, Jeremy, jura, Richard, Lucian – great, insightful feedback, thank you guys! I kind of dropped the ball when I was on travel, so I have to take your thoughts and rotate them a bit in my head. I very much lean towards what Lucian says:
The best designs are immediately understandable to its users.
… but still, it seems you cannot design something so that it is is “immediately understandable” without making assumptions. Mmh.
-
On May 18, 2009, 0:11 CEST, webprincessin said:
I think, webdesign itself should hold things simple. Problem in our times might be, that people want to press too much stuff in one webproject - and make it complex. The more complex, the less people will understand - the more simple means the more easy ways.
Staying in those door excample: The function is how to open or close. If you will give differnt ways to open, you will start to confuse people - just while you give them differnt options to choose. Opening a door will be not something clear any more. If you invent a door wich will open in a way people do not use usualy, f.e. you’d have to call a special keyword to open the door, people will stand like Ali Baba in front of the and won’t be able to open. This “secret” keyword will not be part of common culture, even if you’d write it down at the door (remember this fat mans twist in Commercial for a beer - was written “twist to open”)
Reduce Options and use common ways and your design will work. Its not intelligence a good designer need - but a feeling for common use. -
On June 8, 2009, 7:03 CEST, Rudi from colostrum portal said:
Design is not everything, but without Design is all nothing. The correct mixture from beautiful and interesting features in a Design is really difficult to find. I notice this again and again with each new builded website.
-
On March 24, 2010, 16:06 CET, Troy H said:
I realize I’m a bit late, but I felt compelled to comment.
If you take a standard door with a knob, a person is likely to figure it out. People are curious and they have hands. When they see the knob they’re going to grab it. Eventually they’ll figure out that it turns. Once they figure it out there will be no stopping them—they’ll be opening doors everywhere.
Of course you don’t want a person to have to think that much when they come to your site. But you can expect that they know how to use a mouse. If something grabs their attention—door knob—they’re going to click it. After getting around the Internet a bit and clicking on stuff they’re going to develop expectations.
Attempting to reinvent the door would be pointless. It has a core functionality that everyone expects. Attempting to change this would simply confuse people. Regardless of what doors look like, they are all expected to function in very similar ways. However, a more attractive door can potentially make the simple experience of viewing and opening the door better. A person is also likely to expect better things to lie behind an attractive door compared to an ugly door.
So, like a door, web sites should function in ways that are generally expected from most people. Being creative in a way that goes against these expectations could lead to failure. Being creative in enhancing the experience people have while meeting their expectations would be a more successful route.
Good design is more a matter of understanding people and their expectations than being highly intelligent. Being thoughtful and considerate goes beyond simply being a good person—it also helps with being a good designer.
