Design process discussion

[Necere]

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

Taste is subjective, but there are universal (or near-universal) principles at play as well. I think one of the biggest differences between people is the "stimulation threshold," i.e. some people really appreciate minimalism, while others just find it boring. I think this has a lot do with personality type and the extroversion/introversion dichotomy. Some people just need a bunch of flashing lights and excitement to get their interest. The upshot of that is they get also get bored quickly, and move on to the next thing. IMO I have no desire to design stuff that appeals to those sorts of people, at least partly because it implies high product turnover and the wastefulness that comes with it.

Lets be honest, we are talking about boxes ... not painting, music or sculptures. Does it have to convey something ?

It does whether you want it to or not. The only question is, what will that be?

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

Why did Apple's designers do this? The difference is so slight you'd never notice them 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.

I think that "because of the flat side buttons" is a simpler and more plausible reason...

 

[BernardoZ]

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 them 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.

Pretty interesting! I keep my opinion that this is too much thought for a PC Case, but I get your point...

Btw, may I ask you: What "feelings" do you think your M1 pass? What did you aim for? Minimalism, clean-looking, agressive?
Just curious

 

[Necere]

I think that "because of the flat side buttons" is a simpler and more plausible reason...

Your image is broken (doesn't look like they allow hotlinking), but here, I've rehosted it:

I don't see what the side buttons have to do with the corner radius, though. A circular arc would've worked just as well.

 

[Necere]

Pretty interesting! I keep my opinion that this is too much thought for a PC Case, but I get your point...

Well, that level of precision is basically impossible for us to get even if we wanted it. It's on a whole other level from what we do, really.

But it's that philosophy of considering the small details, as well as the bigger picture of how everything fits together, that sets really good design apart. If you care about design at all, it's worth thinking about.

Btw, may I ask you: What "feelings" do you think your M1 pass? What did you aim for? Minimalism, clean-looking, agressive?
Just curious

Minimalist while retaining a unique identity. Angular, clean, modern, technical, masculine, compact, performant, purposeful. Symmetry, proportion, harmony, no superfluous details; every element exists for a reason.

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

Taste is subjective, but there are universal (or near-universal) principles at play as well. I think one of the biggest differences between people is the "stimulation threshold," i.e. some people really appreciate minimalism, while others just find it boring. I think this has a lot do with personality type and the extroversion/introversion dichotomy.

I do agree on that part, but a design in my opinion doesn't convey anything. People see what they want to see in it, based on their personality and experience. As you said, some like minimalism for its purity while others find it boring and soul-less.

An example: audio gears. I do not consider myself as an audiophile, I am more a music eater in the way that music feeds my soul. Most audio stuff are over designed and forget their prime role: playing music. When I listen to music, I close my eyes and try to shut down all my other sense as much as possible, so that I only feel the music. I do not care how the speakers, amp, cans or sources look like. It is even more important with speakers as materials and shapes alter the sound produced by them. You can't go too creative with them.

It does whether you want it to or not. The only question is, what will that be?

Again, people will see what they want to see, not what I wanted to show them.

I don't see what the side buttons have to do with the corner radius, though. A circular arc would've worked just as well.

Because if you want the buttons to feel thin, you need a flat or near-flat surface. Else their edges will feel like protruding too much.

 

[Necere]

I do agree on that part, but a design in my opinion doesn't convey anything.

So when you look at, touch, smell, and/or listen to an object, it doesn't stir any feeling in you? You don't get a "feeling about that object," purely based on its physical characteristics? I don't think you're being fully honest here if you want to make that claim.

Maybe you're just so used to things that you don't notice how they make you feel. But consider what you might feel on encountering a completely novel object - something you've never seen before. What are your first impressions going to be? Is it soft and fuzzy, or hard with sharp edges? What color is it? Does it make you wonder what it does, what it's for? Is it appealing to you, does it make you want to touch it? To possess it?

Do you like nice things? What makes a thing "nice?" Are there commonalities in what people consider nice, good, desirable? Or is personal taste just a completely random thing, with no statistically significant trends across populations?

Because if you want the buttons to feel thin, you need a flat or near-flat surface. Else their edges will feel like protruding too much.

I think either you or I are misunderstanding something. Look at the iPhone drawing again. The radius it illustrates is at the corner of the phone. It joins the sides, but otherwise has nothing to do with them. The sides could be flat or curved (as they are), and it would make no difference to the curve of the corner radius.

 

[Choidebu]

Very interesting discussion here!

I've got a question though: my theory is design, as with everything human related, comes and goes in fashion. For example, I remember seeing the first iPhones as aesthetically pleasing, but not so much now. Even with 'timeless design' as people put it, our feeling towards it evolves, while it might not veer towards 'bad' (baroque design for example) we don't see it as good as it was.

How do you cope with this? As I see it the more set you are in a certain mindset as a designer, the more likely your designs will fall out of fashion?

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

So when you look at, touch, smell, and/or listen to an object, it doesn't stir any feeling in you? You don't get a "feeling about that object," purely based on its physical characteristics? I don't think you're being fully honest here if you want to make that claim.

It doesn't convey anything, it brings memories or feelings back. Those are different from one person to another because every single person are different. A same texture, color, material, smell can be joyful or painful depending on each user's life. You can't expect two people to react the same based on that and thus can't base your design on that.

A song that most find sad can makes me feel good because I have a warm memory linked to it while a joyfull song can make me feel sad if it reminds me of something painful.

I prefer textured materials as I am a tactile guy, hence I hate tactile screen and find them life-less. But a product with textured surface won't necessarily make me feel something. Feelings are personal, not universal. They are somnething precious that can't be simulated or faked, just like you can't judge a book by its cover.

 

[Necere]

Very interesting discussion here!

I've got a question though: my theory is design, as with everything human related, comes and goes in fashion. For example, I remember seeing the first iPhones as aesthetically pleasing, but not so much now. Even with 'timeless design' as people put it, our feeling towards it evolves, while it might not veer towards 'bad' (baroque design for example) we don't see it as good as it was.

How do you cope with this? As I see it the more set you are in a certain mindset as a designer, the more likely your designs will fall out of fashion?

Some designs are more timeless than others, and some do reach a kind of timeless appeal. Trends have their place in helping to define a zeitgeist, but I think they're an indulgence, and really ought to be relegated to certain categories of products that wear out quickly or become obsoleted anyway. Unfortunately there's a lot of "gotta have the new thing" that plagues our society, which I find to be really objectionable, even as I sometimes fall into it myself.

As a designer, timelessness is the ideal that I would aspire to, even though I might never achieve it.

 

[Necere]

It doesn't convey anything, it brings memories or feelings back. Those are different from one person to another because every single person are different. A same texture, color, material, smell can be joyful or painful depending on each user's life. You can't expect two people to react the same based on that and thus can't base your design on that.

What does a smile convey? It's a universal expression that exists across human cultures, and it's universally understood that it means joy, happiness, satisfaction, etc. There are universal signals that we as humans understand instinctively (or else learn at a very young age). Those implicitly understood signals can be incorporated into designs. Car designers do just that with with facial expressions all the time. Notice the trend of "angry-looking" cars in the last several years? These are universally-understood cues.

Even in regards to more subjective cues, we can draw some valuable conclusions. I'll ask you again: do you like nice things? Sure, you might say, but "nice" is subjective, and others will disagree with what "nice" applies to. And I would agree with you. But again, it seems clear that commonalities exist across populations as to what's "nice" and what isn't. Not everyone agrees, but when enough people do, then you can say it's worth considering those preferences when designing something that you want to be "nice" to appeal to people. That would be your "target market."

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

And what about smiles that are faked to the extend of feeling genuine just to hide true sadness because most wouldn't understand ones despair or care to ? Again, do not judge a book by its cover. Smiles can be polite, faked to obtain something (sales), pure happiness, a facade ....

About things that are considered nice, most are only designs following fashion. I never followed fashion, I wear a pocket watch and use 30yo keyboard and trackball. Stuff I like and find nice are considered old-fashioned and outdated. Should I not find them nice then because they are commonly considered as such ?

When I drive a car I care about how it behaves on the road not how it looks, when I listen to speakers or amp I care about how they sounds not how they look, I do not care if people like my clothes I want them to be comfy and to my taste. I like to eat my cheese with mustard on it and almost every one think it is non-sense.

If you want most people to find your design appealing, then you have to follow trends and forget about what you deeply feel. But then can it still be considered your design since it is only based on trends with a small fraction of your being in it ?

If someone is to design something that deeply express him(her)self, then chances are high it won't touch many souls. And people who will trully react to it the way, the designer wanted, will have a personnality built from experiences close to the designer's life.

 

[BernardoZ]

I'd like to add something.
The way I see it, clean-looking/minimalistic is almost always the safest and most obvious way to design something, as it provokes a more neutral feeling on people.
The moment you add a detail that breaks this simetric pattern, you are taking a risk, that can either be good (give personality to the product) or bad (make people set apart in opinions).
In the case of the new Sentry, I highly doubt a simple line will be a deal-breaker for who is actually interested in it.
Thoughts?

 

[owliwar]

well, first, I really like this post and while controversial I appreciate how strong are necere's feelings about design. I can fell you passion for this topic and I share it. I can say you reminds me of some of my teachers.

I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion but one of the basis of design is psychology, and while we can agree or disagree on a personal level there's quite a lot of studies that show that we as human beings are driven by some primal feelings when we observe form.
That is the bases of Gestalt. some will say that its 7 laws but its more of a guide.

On the topic of cars, in japan they usually prefer "smiling cars" over cars with the angry face. that is a cultural phenomenon that is prevalent in there or at least used to be. So I think it IS a topic of greater importance when making new products;

and while my way of thinking if heavily influenced by bauhaus and philosophy I have a brackground in art as well. and in art meaning is more subtle; some places call design 'applied arts' and I dont disagree.

Guille, I dont think what you said contradicts what necere's said.
while I'm a very visual person myself (I am a visual artist), I also share you foundness for texture and sound. designing for the experience is also a way of designing.
things used to be design differently in the past. usually more thought were put into everything because there was no shortcut. of course there was some products that was heavily skewed in a certain direction, like the US styling era or the form over function era that came before. BUT things were designed with something in mind.

I'm 25. I've also have wear pocket watch and tophat in my teens. I love old audio equipment and deeply enjoy how machinery used to be made. its not because they aren't current fashion that they lose meaning and value and I dont read neceres point that way. these things had a lot of thinking put into it. maybe not by a single person. some took generations to get to their final forms. but they were made by humans, and we as humans look out for meaning, even if we don't consciously know that.

 

[Necere]

And what about smiles that are faked to the extend of feeling genuine just to hide true sadness because most wouldn't understand ones despair or care to ? Again, do not judge a book by its cover. Smiles can be polite, faked to obtain something (sales), pure happiness, a facade ....

Whether what is conveyed is actually true or not is beside the point. The point is the impression one gets from it. That is what is universally understood.

About things that are considered nice, most are only designs following fashion. I don't and never followed fashion, I wear a pocket watch and use 30yo keyboard and trackball. Stuff I like and find nice are considered old-fashioned and outdated. Should I not find them nice then because they are commonly considered as such ?

I never implied any such thing.

What makes those things nice to you? What qualities do those things have that makes them nice? Are they well-built? Do they have aesthetic qualities you find appealing? Were they considered nice things in their time?

If you want most people to find your design appealing, then you have to follow trends and forget about what you deeply feel.

You're confusing trends with universal preference constants. These are things like preferences for symmetry and proportion. A lot of this is probably down to instinctive evolutionary-tuned mate selection processes going on in the more primitive parts of our brain, but I would guess it also has to do with preferences for environments suitable to habitation, survival, and protection. I think we're wired to be able to get a sense for health and fertility not just in members of our own species for the purposes of mate selection, but in other species as well - both plants and animal. Symmetry, proportion, lack of defects are all strong indicators for proper growth, fertility and overall health. I think our sense of aesthetics derives directly from that (though not exclusively, as cultural influences play a significant role too).

The psychology governing preferences for trends I think has more to do with desire for social inclusion and a fascination with novelty, so these by their very nature will tend to shift over time.

 

[Necere]

By the way, I am by means any kind of expert on design, and you shouldn't listen to me. Instead, listen to Dieter:

The man spent his life working in design, and is one of the most respected people in the field. Whether you fully agree with his principles or not, they're at least worth taking into consideration.

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

What makes those things nice to you? What qualities do those things have that makes them nice? Are they well-built? Do they have aesthetic qualities you find appealing? Were they considered nice things in their time?

If I should find a single aspect they share, quality. They are not luxurous but built from quiality materials. I hate to waste and throw stuff away. I hate overpackaging and am 1000000% for environmentally-friendly stuff. But other that than, nothing. Not must have from their time, not even from the same centuries, no shared aesthetic aspects. I won't say that I adopted them, but this is not entirely false either.

I feel things, deeply just like I do not listen to music .. I feel the music. Call me a weirdo, that's what society think of me, but I do not really care. All those things I like already had at least one life before me, they aren't expensive or over designed stuff. Just simple, repurposed items that continue to live through me.

I think that the best design is something the designer designed with him(her)self in mind, with all his/her soul poured into it. People will like it or not, but that's not whats important. It will be unique, full of feelings and emotions .. and a maybe a commercial failure, but I don't really care about that .

Also, keep in mind that each person is unique and have his/her way to think/feel. People who really know me know how I do not like this tendancy society has to fit everything into a drawer with a label on it. I hear and respect your opinion but nothing irritates me more than someone trying to force his/her opinion on me. I do not care about society nor codes/atavism nor aesthetic, I only follow my heart and what it dictates to me.

 

[Necere]

I think that the best design is something the designer designed with him(her)self in mind, with all his/her soul poured into it. People will like it or not, but that's not whats important. It will be unique, full of feelings and emotions .. and a maybe a commercial failure, but I don't really care about that .

Here's the thing about design, as I see it (and I think most people that work in the field would agree with me): it's a discipline, and it's fundamentally about understanding people's needs. It's not just another word for art. If we were talking about art, I would unequivocally agree with you. But we're not. Design is a discipline that requires study and understanding to do well and be successful at.

 

[GuilleAcoustic]

Then why are aesthetic and feelings that important to you ? If it ain't a form of art ?

 

[Necere]

Then why are aesthetic and feelings that important to you ? If it ain't a form of art ?

Because aesthetics is an important part of design. Aesthetics itself is not a form of art, but the study or philosophy of art, and how the human mind perceives beauty.