Design process discussion

[Necere]

MOD BREAK: I split off the topic because it was derailing the Custom Projects & Cases topic it was posted in. Please continue here in a civil manner.

Well, we've designed that to add some style/character to the otherwise rough and boring vent area and the whole side panel in the first Sentry.

I understand why you did it, I just don't think it's the right choice. "Design" isn't something that should be "added;" rather, you want to think about your design holistically. What is your design saying? Does it communicate its function and purpose well to the user? How does each element fit into the whole?

For purely decorative elements - such as the character line - what does it contribute? Does it fit with the rest of the design? What does it communicate to the user? What adjectives does it suggest? "Fast?" "Powerful?" "High-tech?" Is the message consistent with the rest of the design? Think about these things. If it's not adding anything of value - not communicating anything meaningful to the user - then why add it?

IMO trying to convey dynamic concepts like the adjectives above via simple cuts in sheet metal, in a way that doesn't look crude and amateurish, is next to impossible. You can do a lot more with stamping/forming sheet metal (as in automotive body panels, for example), but when you're limited to to basic cutting and bending, one really needs to be judicious in the styling department. Less is more.

Just my $0.02, FWIW.

 

[Necere]

Also, in spite of everything I just said, for the most part I don't actually explicitly ask myself those questions when I work. It's more of a post hoc articulation of the process. The actual process itself is more about thinking in forms and feeling out a design. Any words I use are just an attempt to articulate that process, and are really just an approximation.

 

[jØrd]

I understand why you did it, I just don't think it's the right choice. "Design" isn't something that should be "added;" rather, you want to think about your design holistically. What is your design saying? Does it communicate its function and purpose well to the user? How does each element fit into the whole?

For purely decorative elements - such as the character line - what does it contribute? Does it fit with the rest of the design? What does it communicate to the user? What adjectives does it suggest? "Fast?" "Powerful?" "High-tech?" Is the message consistent with the rest of the design? Think about these things. If it's not adding anything of value - not communicating anything meaningful to the user - then why add it?

IMO trying to convey dynamic concepts like the adjectives above via simple cuts in sheet metal, in a way that doesn't look crude and amateurish, is next to impossible. You can do a lot more with stamping/forming sheet metal (as in automotive body panels, for example), but when you're limited to to basic cutting and bending, one really needs to be judicious in the styling department. Less is more.

Just my $0.02, FWIW.

Whilst your entitled to your opinion I feel compelled to point out that no two creative workflows are the same, its part of what makes the design industry so unique. Two people can have two completely different ways of seeing the world, two different ways of finding inspiration and interpreting ideas, of expressing themselves and their unique take on a concept. A method that works for one person may very well not be applicable to the next man. If we all saw the world the same way, had the same creative process and shared the exact same ideas about how to design we would all create the exact same thing. Wheres the fun in that.

 

[Necere]

So, sure, most of what you said is fair. But this:

If we all saw the world the same way, had the same creative process and shared the exact same ideas about how to design we would all create the exact same thing.

I don't agree with. There are always different ways of solving problems, and different aesthetic approaches communicate different things to the user. Consider just the difference between using rounded edges vs. a more angular look, for example. What I'm saying is, there ought to be some consideration put into the design, and I as a user ought to be able to formulate some impressions about what the design is trying to convey. If the design is purely arbitrary, without much thought put into it, then I don't consider it a good design.

 

[ZombiPL]

So, sure, most of what you said is fair. But this:

I don't agree with. There are always different ways of solving problems, and different aesthetic approaches communicate different things to the user. Consider just the difference between using rounded edges vs. a more angular look, for example. What I'm saying is, there ought to be some consideration put into the design, and I as a user ought to be able to formulate some impressions about what the design is trying to convey. If the design is purely arbitrary, without much thought put into it, then I don't consider it a good design.

We are here to talk about such things, and just like I said, we will try to make some renders to check your idea.

 

[jØrd]

If the design is purely arbitrary, without much thought put into it, then I don't consider it a good design.

I am going to make the assumption that your absolutely not implying thats the case here w/ the Sentry 2. I guess my point is that just because another designer has different considerations or different concepts that they want to convey or different ways of conveying them that it doesnt mean their creative process is any less valid than next mans, or that their work is either. it just means that the way they design, the way they think, the way that they convey their ideas is different to the way you or I might. That doesnt make their process any less valid or their work either for that matter. As I said, if we all thought the same way and designed the same way then we would all make the same thing.

Now, as for you as a user, you are also entitled to your own sense of ascetic and you get to vote w/ your wallet. Half the reason there is a thriving indie case scene right now is exactly because users have different ideas about what they find visually pleasing and different ideas about what they consider to be priorities when their buying a case.

 

[SaperPL]

I understand why you did it, I just don't think it's the right choice. "Design" isn't something that should be "added;" rather, you want to think about your design holistically. What is your design saying? Does it communicate its function and purpose well to the user? How does each element fit into the whole?

For purely decorative elements - such as the character line - what does it contribute? Does it fit with the rest of the design? What does it communicate to the user? What adjectives does it suggest? "Fast?" "Powerful?" "High-tech?" Is the message consistent with the rest of the design? Think about these things. If it's not adding anything of value - not communicating anything meaningful to the user - then why add it?

IMO trying to convey dynamic concepts like the adjectives above via simple cuts in sheet metal, in a way that doesn't look crude and amateurish, is next to impossible. You can do a lot more with stamping/forming sheet metal (as in automotive body panels, for example), but when you're limited to to basic cutting and bending, one really needs to be judicious in the styling department. Less is more.

Just my $0.02, FWIW.

Also, in spite of everything I just said, for the most part I don't actually explicitly ask myself those questions when I work. It's more of a post hoc articulation of the process. The actual process itself is more about thinking in forms and feeling out a design. Any words I use are just an attempt to articulate that process, and are really just an approximation.

Well, take it as you want, but to explain it shortly - we weren't satisfied with how Sentry looked before we added this line because panel surface with full grid looked really dull and bare to us. So we spent a week or two making mock-ups on how it could look and ended up with what we have.

This detail line in vents, 45 degree cuts and the way that screws are mounted on the front panel are parts of our design that is distinguishing Sentry from other cases, like for example MC600 or the Aorus Gaming Box.

 

[Necere]

I am going to make the assumption that your absolutely not implying thats the case here w/ the Sentry 2.

I don't think the character line is a good design element.

I guess my point is that just because another designer has different considerations or different concepts that they want to convey or different ways of conveying them that it doesnt mean their creative process is any less valid than next mans, or that their work is either.

Well, if zombi or saper can articulate what the design (or the character line in particular) is trying to convey, I'm perfectly open to hearing it. What do you think it conveys? What is the "story" or "feeling" of the design?

it just means that the way they design, the way they think, the way that they convey their ideas is different to the way you or I might. That doesnt make their process any less valid or their work either for that matter.

Not all design is equally good. You could maybe make an argument if it were art that the subjective experience is such that any attempts to objectively measure it's quality would be invalid, but even then I think most of us can at least spot bad art when we see it.

Design - the kind we're discussing - isn't art though. Fundamentally, we're designing functional objects. They're intended to be used, and not just looked at. This implies a set of priorities that aren't applicable to art. Conveying function is right at the top. Apart from that, the aesthetics of the design convey different feelings, many of which are pretty universal. Curved vs. angular corresponding to feminine vs. masculine; lines that convey aggression, motion, solidity, etc. We have an intuitive, instinctive sense of these things, just as inherent attributes of our human nature. Beyond that, there are cues that rely on cultural context and learned association. It's important to have some level of awareness of all of these factors (even if not explicitly).

As I said, if we all thought the same way and designed the same way then we would all make the same thing.

And I would refer you to my previous response. Thinking the same way is not the same as coming to the same result. You can think the same way, but have very different design goals. Do you want to design something that looks aggressive, or more conservative?

What I'm saying is that you should have some idea of what you're going for, and the user should, intuitively at least, have some notion of what your intent was.

 

[Phuncz]

MOD BREAK: I've split off the discussion that was severely derailing the original topic (Sentry 2.0 topic).
I encourage to remain civil in your discussion but keep try to keep an open mind: everyone has their way in designing and there is no single way that is the best.

 

[Necere]

To illustrate my point, take these two images:

Which of these cars looks more aggressive? More powerful? Which looks more feminine? Which do you think can go faster? Even assuming one knows nothing else about these two cars, 95% of the answers you'll get will be in agreement. Why is that? How is it that they can convey these qualities purely through their appearance?

Being a good designer means you should have an awareness and understanding of these visual (as well as other sensory) cues, and be able to use them to communicate intent through your design. Without that understanding, you're just designing in the dark.

Every design will create some impression for the user. If as a designer you have no understanding (explicit or otherwise) of the effect these visual cues have, and just design haphazardly and arbitrarily, then your designs will more than likely reflect that.

 

[SaperPL]

I have some time now, so I will articulate the difference in our approach to design vs your approach @Necere.

You can approach design inside-out or outside-in. You can say the form is the king and the function follows or the opposite.

From what I've seen so far with your designs, you are initially making a layout idea to start out with the basic shape, but after that the form is the king and the function follows.

This might vary depending on what you define as the main function though - is it that the case has to be a console form factor to fit certain use cases? or is it that it has to accommodate all the ultra high-end hardware?

This differentiation in design approach can be also observed in games. In games where the core features are awesome animations, cut-scenes and story telling you will have all mechanics designed and precisely implemented around that looks. For example picking up an item, looting character or opening a cupboard will have full hand animation and the item will be fully represented with matching 3d mesh. But that will limit amount of actions that can be implemented for the player character in reasonable time of a project. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have a game with focus on simple gameplay loops like fighting and collecting items, and the game is not supposed to be ultra-immersive and storytelling so the items will simply pop out of killed characters with generic item meshes and you will pick them up by simply walking over them etc.

So getting back to explaining the difference in our approaches to designing cases - you are mainly focused on the looks and therefore in your approach you never compromise on the looks, but you will have to sometimes compromise on other aspects on that.

With Sentry, we are focused on the function which is case being the console sized while fitting specific configurations and we will have to compromise sometimes on the looks and other aspects. The aesthetic design follows the function and therefore it isn't the main driving force of our design. So in our case, the aesthetics are designed after the function is designed, they are made sometimes locally and are separate from each other, but we try to make them work together well.

You can't focus on both in a way there are no compromises in both - you either focus on one without compromises in it, or you balance it somehow. Multi-criteria optimisation does not exists - you either optimise one or create a quality function that balances both and optimise the outcome.

My final point here is: Sentry is not aiming to convey any specific feelings by its looks. It is supposed to work properly, fit under your TV, in your backpack and to not look ugly (which we achieve piece by piece by eliminating things that don't play well visually with the rest of the case).

 

[Necere]

@SaperPL , I understand your argument to be that you design function-first, and any consideration for form is secondary to that, correct?

My argument is that ANY consideration for form should take into account aesthetic value and the impression it creates on the user. Do you understand my point?

You also argue that the Sentry doesn't aim to convey any feelings by its looks, but I'm arguing that it will convey something whether you want it to or not. You can either be aware of that or not, but I would argue that designing without awareness is not a good design practice, and does not lend itself to a good final result.

So far, the only reason you've given for adding the character line on the Sentry is that it "looked boring," and it needed to be distinguished from other products. Those might be arguments (not necessarily good arguments) for adding something, but they say nothing about why you added that specifically. Why that shape, and not some other?


As far as my approach, I don't consider it strictly form-follows-function, and never have. Rather, I have always strived to find those designs where they're able to complement each other well. This is why I call it a holistic design philosophy - neither form nor function comes first or takes precedence over the other. Your approach - function first, aesthetics later - is the same approach manufacturers use 95% of the time, and is exactly why I think the resulting products often fail in one of these two areas. N.b., I'm not saying you should use the same approach as me. All I'm suggesting is that you think about the aesthetic design and try to justify those design decisions the same way you would the functional aspects.


As an aside, and in case anyone has ever noticed and wondered, this is one reason why I dislike the 'like' system and refuse to use it: it lends itself to pile-on and taking sides with a "winner" and a "loser," rather than productive discussion. If you disagree with me, tell me why, and maybe something useful can come from it. Otherwise, it's little more than ganging up, and accomplishes nothing of value.

 

[FullForceRainbow]

@SaperPL , I understand your argument to be that you design function-first, and any consideration for form is secondary to that, correct?

My argument is that ANY consideration for form should take into account aesthetic value and the impression it creates on the user. Do you understand my point?

You also argue that the Sentry doesn't aim to convey any feelings by its looks, but I'm arguing that it will convey something whether you want it to or not. You can either be aware of that or not, but I would argue that designing without awareness is not a good design practice, and does not lend itself to a good final result.

So far, the only reason you've given for adding the character line on the Sentry is that it "looked boring," and it needed to be distinguished from other products. Those might be arguments (not necessarily good arguments) for adding something, but they say nothing about why you added that specifically. Why that shape, and not some other?


As far as my approach, I don't consider it strictly form-follows-function, and never have. Rather, I have always strived to find those designs where they're able to complement each other well. This is why I call it a holistic design philosophy - neither form nor function comes first or takes precedence over the other. Your approach - function first, aesthetics later - is the same approach manufacturers use 95% of the time, and is exactly why I think the resulting products often fail in one of these two areas. N.b., I'm not saying you should use the same approach as me. All I'm suggesting is that you think about the aesthetic design and try to justify those design decisions the same way you would the functional aspects.


As an aside, and in case anyone has ever noticed and wondered, this is one reason why I dislike the 'like' system and refuse to use it: it lends itself to pile-on and taking sides with a "winner" and a "loser," rather than productive discussion. If you disagree with me, tell me why, and maybe something useful can come from it. Otherwise, it's little more than ganging up, and accomplishes nothing of value.

Hi @Necere, I'm following this thread trying to learn some about design approaches. I have a question, I hope that is okay. Are you saying that you feel that "form" design elements should be added/chosen with the intention of conveying some specific idea or message to the end user? The points you were making were bringing to mind something I had heard about the inclusion of non-structural I-beams in a lot of Meis's buildings.

Spoiler: Seagram Building Example

The I-beams run the entire height of the building, and don't serve any structural purpose, but they do serve to convey the structure of a skyscraper to the end user--something that the concrete structure of the building wouldn't convey (at least this is what I've heard from some graduate architecture students, I hope this is correct).

So though the beams aren't functionally significant, they are included to convey a specific message to people who see the building. Is this what you are saying about why you feel designers should choose to include "form" elements in their designs?

I hope what I was trying to ask was clear .

 

[Necere]

So though the beams aren't functionally significant, they are included to convey a specific message to people who see the building. Is this what you are saying about why you feel designers should choose to include "form" elements in their designs?

Yes, though in my view the ideal is for the structure or function itself to be the basis of the form, and be aesthetic unto itself. To the extent that's not always possible, or the idea is to convey some specific theme or idea, then at least it's better for the design process to be thoughtful and purposeful, and have some unifying vision.

That building, for example, to me conveys a few things: regimentation, structure, and orderliness, solidity - suitable characteristics for an office building. Notice as well how the exterior I-beams are carried into the interior ceiling lighting, creating the impression of a cohesive, purposeful whole. They didn't have to make those ceiling tiles line up, but they did. Thoughtfulness like that is the essence of good design.

 

[SaperPL]

@Necere
I understood your point. It's just that I don't agree with the fact that each part of the aesthetic design has to AIM AT conveying something.

It's like saying when designing a door, the door knob has to convey something to be visually attractive, which simply isn't true. It has to communicate its function properly (like the issue with push/pull doors and handle bars) while at the same time not being a standard door knob. To be visually attractive it should not require understanding of the meaning behind the design from the user, therefore forcefully designing such object around communicating something is pointless, unless of course that's it's function (communicating something more than how to use it).

Design can be for example geometrically interesting simply because of interesting proportions and angles not commonly used in the industry/similar products/public space etc that attract attention. And the geometry doesn't have to have any specific meaning, unless of course you want it to. And obviously you have to take into consideration fact that some geometry might have a cultural meaning behind it.

Anyway I do understand your approach, I agree with the part about being aware of the potential meaning of some design, but I do not agree that aiming to communicate something is a must in design.

So getting back to answering the original question - The line does not try to communicate anything. Its aim is to break the order of perforation to make it geometrically interesting.

 

[FullForceRainbow]

Yes, though in my view the ideal is for the structure or function itself to be the basis of the form, and be aesthetic unto itself. To the extent that's not always possible, or the idea is to convey some specific theme or idea, then at least it's better for the design process to be thoughtful and purposeful, and have some unifying vision.

That building, for example, to me conveys a few things: regimentation, structure, and orderliness, solidity - suitable characteristics for an office building. Notice as well how the exterior I-beams are carried into the interior ceiling lighting, creating the impression of a cohesive, purposeful whole. They didn't have to make those ceiling tiles line up, but they did. Thoughtfulness like that is the essence of good design.

Thank you so much for the reply ! I see the way that those beams are carried into the lighting, I hadn’t noticed before. That level of attention to detail really is stunning! I completely agree about that level thoughtfulness being what makes the design so wonderful.

 

[BernardoZ]

@Necere You are much more experienced in this field than me, but in my opinion, you are overthinking too much dude.

A car or a building have much more complex designs than a PC case. The way I see, a chassis can almost only look clean, agressive, or something between those.

By saying that, I totally understand the reason for the Z line on the new Sentry. Because we did something very similar in our case project, check:


As you can see, there is no good point for the vent holes to be like that. It's just a small detail, that I consider a "pattern-breaker", something that makes it look a bit more aggressive. As you said yourself, there are many many ways you can do this "pattern break", and that's the beauty of it: it gives some personality to the case. I also understand that you probably prefer a cleaner look, that's fine.

Remember this is just my opinion, I totally respect yours. I will be following this thread anyway, seems an interesting discussion...

Cheers

 

[Necere]

@Necere
I understood your point. It's just that I don't agree with the fact that each part of the aesthetic design has to AIM AT conveying something.

Do you agree that everything conveys something, whether intentional or not? That every element of the design influences the impression of the user? Things can convey harmony or disorder, complexity or simplicity. A designer's job is to guide that experience.

It's like saying when designing a door, the door knob has to convey something to be visually attractive, which simply isn't true.

But whether a door handle is ornate or simple, for example, communicates different things to the user. About the building, what it might be used for, who it's for etc. Either one can be attractive, but they convey different things. Likewise, context is important, too. A simple door handle on an ornate building will look out of place, and lend it a sense of disharmony that will influence a person's feeling about the place.

Design can be for example geometrically interesting simply because of interesting proportions and angles not commonly used in the industry/similar products/public space etc that attract attention. And the geometry doesn't have to have any specific meaning, unless of course you want it to. And obviously you have to take into consideration fact that some geometry might have a cultural meaning behind it.

So I think you're not quite understanding my point. When I gave the example of the cars, I used fairly concrete concepts like masculine and feminine. But more abstract concepts like harmony, order and disorder, motion - those are all just as valid. It isn't necessarily that a design conveys meaning, per se, but that it will convey certain feelings. And as a designer, you should have some understanding of what those are, how your design affects the user.

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

Aesthetic is something so subjective that you'll always have lovers and haters, which is still better than leaving everyone indifferent.

Lets be honest, we are talking about boxes ... not painting, music or sculptures. Does it have to convey something ? I'd be glad if MSI and alikes could stop using dragons, L3Ds and weapon style heatsinks to convey ideas of "POW3RFULL HARDWARE".

I am the kind of person that looks at feature, base material, build quality and price. Aesthetic is the last deciding factor when I buy something. It has to suit my tastes of course, but I do not care if vents are circles, squares or hexagons (unless it has a reason other than aesthetic to be that way).

When I gave the example of the cars, I used fairly concrete concepts like masculine and feminine. But more abstract concepts like harmony, order and disorder, motion - those are all just as valid. It isn't necessarily that a design conveys meaning, per se, but that it will convey certain feelings. And as a designer, you should have some understanding of what those are, how your design affects the user.

And that's the exact reason why I never find something designed for MEN that suites my tastes. Because they were designed with a stereotype of MAN in mind: a man has a black car with leather seats and red brakes, a man like sports, a man like huge watches ........ am I really a man ?

 

[Necere]

@Necere You are much more experienced in this field than me, but in my opinion, you are overthinking too much dude.

I disagree. Sweat the details. It's what separates the good from the mediocre.

Consider an example. This is the technical drawing for the corner radius on an iPhone:

Note that it's not a simple circular arc. It has a subtle flattening of the curve where it meets the sides.

Why did Apple's designers do this? The difference is so slight you'd never notice it in hand. The easy thing to do would've been to just make it a regular circular arc.

I don't actually know why they did it, but I can speculate: I think by tapering the curve like that, that when photographed or rendered, it produces a gradient contour across the transition from the curve and the sides. It's a subtle effect, but it better conveys the sense of curvature and "hand feel," and makes for a sleeker, more premium looking product.

Of course, the vast majority of people will never consciously realize this. But they will say it "looks nicer," even if they can't articulate why.