Design is…
There has always been an intensive debate about defining the subject “design”. The traditional way of defining design has focused on design as aesthetics, forms, plans etc. A very material and more simple way of thinking. This way of thinking – or defining – design has often resulted in a product like a chair, a poster or a dress.
Business and society is rapidly changing: things are getting more complex. Therefore, there is a concentrated focus on innovation and creativity as important elements for our commercial survival in the future. Design is one of the central instruments to realize the vision of innovation and creativity.
For this reason, the design discussion is now focused on a more open and involves a broader definition. Today design is rather defined as an intangible process.
Steve Jobs from Apple says: “Design is the fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service”.
That means the current notion of design is comprehensive –some would say too comprehensive. Working with design as an intangible process also means that this kind of process combines various of professions and many different methods. This way of working – and thinking – often gives a perfect staring point for innovation. The results in this area are much more dynamic and inconclusive. The results can for instance be the creation of a better service experience or optimisation of a working process.
This way of working with design and innovation was introduced by companies such as IDEO and Frog Design. Both are design companies employing an interdisciplinary approach with designers, engineers, psychologists, anthropologists, technologist etc. working together, using design methods to create innovation.
This is how we define design at 1508:
Design is an interdisciplinary method to create measurable and innovative results.
We believe that working and investing in design will effect positive changes on the bottom line, in attitude and behaviour. Design is not art – or just a matter of form and aesthetics. When we are using our design methods and interacting with the user, we can create useful solutions, which quickly satisfy the return of investment.
Well… the discussion on the definition of design will presumably never end. And that’s good. Because it indicates that this area of business is dynamic – and most importantly will develop and hopefully expand.
We really would like you to discus this definition of design with us… Are we right or wrong in our way of defining design?
// Dezign Rix
July 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
[...] kan du læse en designdefinition, som er skrevet til 1508s blog. Kommenter endelig gerne - og meget gerne, hvis du ikke er enig [...]
July 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Hi
I’d much rather discuss your 12 hypothesis (which I do on kommunikationsforum and on my blog) lol - but here goes:
Your definition feels too broad or not precise enough - because the only real key word is “innovative”. Were it not for that word it could be sales, sports, etc.
This means that your definition means: design is “measurable innovation” - which may make some sense, but does not cut it when it comes to define design.
Design is giving form to something - so that it exists in the world. It can be tangible or intangible. I have done design in software (application and solution design) and webdevelopment (interaction design and information architecture), in computer games (games design), in training and education (instructional design, production process design and curriculum development) - nonetheless most people would not call me a designer.
If we agree that design is only design if it include some kind of novelty - an “original” solution to a problem - then we need the word “innovative”.
Design is measurable because it is “form” and not just ideas. You can design a process, and even though it has no tangible form, it can be “expressed” through symbolic means - which make a difference - meaning that you can disinguish it from other processes. So “destinguishable” is key here.
Which leads me to my next comment. You might want to take a look at an old clichée: “I don’t know what X is, but I know it when I see it”. That goes for both art and pornography. Problem with art is that it must be distinguised from pure decoration, and problem with pornography is it must be distinguished from erotica. It has to do with a certain “quality”.
That kind of quality may also be a prerequisite of “design”, and I’m not sure “measurable” or “innovative” will describe that “quality”. It has to do with something else.
Let me try to get a little closer to this: Design is a “quality” which has to do with the “deliberate orchestration of means of expression”. If you don’t see a deliberate effort to make the total form a “whole” in some sense - then it is not design. If the effort has failed - then it is bad design. This goes for all kinds of design: visual design, conceptual design, design of instructional material, interaction flows etc.
If your type is not correctly set and needs kerning, then it is bad design. You can see that the designer did not know the “rules” of this specific type of design.
There are rules or conventions. You know that - because if you break them you need to make sure that people “in the know” will have a clue - that you did so on purpose. Otherwise - - - it is just bad design.
If a course is not well designed - it will fall apart and people will not learn as well. If an application does not have a good flow of interactions - then the “users” will fail in using it, or will at least be irritated, or may not come back.
Design of such stuff has to do with “expectations”. You need to meet the expectations, and maybe push the envelope a little.
How much “a little” is - is the job of the designer to figure out.
Much design does not need so much novelty - because the purpose of the design was not to create a great surprise - but to make sure the users would have a good experience. That means you need to know your users - to know their world and their expectations.
And that is why some (young graphic) designers, who would rather be artists, fail. Because they do cool stuff for the sake of the coolness, and for the “prizes” they can win, and the admiration from their peers. And those factors are not actually the best guarantee of good design, but rather the signs of “art sick to the core”.
But here we come close to definitions of art, so I will stop here for now.
I’m just hours away from a week unplugged, so I will not be able to follow up on this in the next week or so I think. But I would love to go into the discussion with you guys.
Best
(And I hope you didn’t get too angry with me - if you read my blog on your 12 hypothesis)
July 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Interesting definition, and an interesting reply Gunnar - we need to talk :)
I’d have to agree that the definition may be a bit too loose. That is speaking in general though, a definition very much has to do with context - is it for yourself, to help define your work, for the client, to aid in the decision to hire you, or what? (speaking, again, generally, but also about this one, which is it?)
I don’t completely agree with Gunnar that design means meeting expectations - although it may well be a route towards short-termed income, but that has more to do with business than with the process of design scrutinized.
I like to think of this role of the designer:
- give to the client, not what he is asking you for but what he never knew he needed
This is part of my own design philosophy:
- design is using creativity to identify specific problem sets (or challenges), and initiate creatively guided processes to solve them
Measurability, then, comes into the equation in two places: Did you identify the right problem sets, and did you solve them in the right way? - the consequece of this, of course, being measurable on the client’s bottom line, red or black?
The challenge of the designer, and the benchmark of a good one, is the ability to get those two things right, and not to find out you didn’t only when the client’s bottom line is red and it is too late.
I have more on this - t’will have to be later though, visit my blogs (sidebar @ The Channel) if you have the time (that means you too, Gunnar) and see if you can manouver through my thoughts about these topics.
I’ll leave you with another quote from the Apple realm - on their unique design, senior designer Jonathan Ive said, “we work really hard to create good products”. No mumbo-jumbo, that’s it, from one of the most influential designers in the world.
Jj
July 17th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
During the last few decades, design has changed it’s position within business - it has become more succesful, and the people surrounding it has become more succesful utilizing it.
Apart from the traditional designers, this success has also attracted an number of new professional groups to the design area. “This is bad, these people don’t understand what it is all about - they’re dangerous” some designers say. “No, it’s good, they bring vitality and new skills” other designers say.
I am in the latter group, I really enjoy that design is not a protected title, that we are all creative beings and that we are all in a sense designers.
Much of the work done to let our surrondings know what design is all about isn’t done by the designers them selves, but by the people with communicationskills, econimic skills and entrepreneurskills that surrounds us.
Let me get to the point: when I read a text like the one above, I feel like it’s written by somebody coming from the outside trying to define whats going on inside, feeling a need to invent what has already been invented a million times in order to take ownership on it.
Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the discussion - otherwise I wouldn’t be posting.
I really enjoyed Jj’s quoute from Ives in the post above, and find it absolutely true.
Most designers - and especially designers who work with innovation - have a real struggle to define their own core competences. As if saying it straight forward might expose that the process is really simple, its just very hard to do it right.
Frederik
July 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Frederik is pretty much right on the money there - he who knows, speaks not, he who speaks, knows not, so to say: Almost every word ever spoken or written about the design world is uttered by non-designers.
(I mention it here and here if you care to know anything at all about my opinion)
It actually is a piece of hard work defining what one is good at when it’s in the realm of creativity - to some of us, telling the story that it’s simple and straight-forward, yet hard to do right, is actually a desired goal…
August 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
@ Frederik: If I get you right you think that “design” is originally graphic design? And that other professions have converged towards that group?
If I understand you - then we don’t really agree on that one. I believe it’s much a danish interpretation of the concept of design. Forinstance Instructional Design - which I did years ago, has been a profession for generations.
@ Jesper: I may not have been clear enough. In hindsight I should have left out a “maybe” - and stated that design actually “meets expectations AND push the envelope”. That would better reflect my opinion.
Which is that you actually need to take into consideration the expectations of your users - audience. Unless you want to be completely unintelligible. That is not for short term profit, but for long term survival.
Above all - designers are often very sensitive people who have great general knowledge of people and lots of subjects. Designers tend to be imaginative, open minded, curious and positive. They don’t shut down the “dream machine” when the first idea hits them.
Design is creative work - and creativity needs practice. So when you stop doing design, your skills deteriorate quickly.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hi Gunnar,
Thanks for the reply. Actually, I don’t think that design is originally graphic design.
I see design as a very broad discipline, involving industrial, graphic, digital, service, conceptual and * design. And I see design as a discipline very much dependant on other disciplines.
With that point being cleared up a little, does my post make more sense ?
Frederik
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Gunnar, if, by “expectations”, you mean the way people think of their surroundings, how they act within them, their “back stories” reflecting on their present, in short - people’s behavioral patterns, then we totally agree.
If, on the other hand, you mean “give the audience what the audience expects” then we don’t - doing that can certainly produce something good, but not doing it is where you just might produce something great.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
oops, clarify: Great for the user and thus also for the designer, not great for the designer and buggeroff to the user…
January 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I would put it fairly simple and say that design may be defined as the difference between similar objects with identical functions.
A prerequisite for good design is when distinction between design and function becomes diffuse/overlapping.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
My husband would be amazed this post. We were recently speaking about this. lol
April 20th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
i have this program that pops up every 5 seconds and i cant find it in uninstall programs and searched the faqs for the website to uninstall it and found it but it didn’t take me anywhere and im thinking it was a fake website.it tried to install something else and it wont let me and my back ground is gone. the program looks like a virus protection program. i think the program was a virus and i need some way to reset my computer, delete the virus, or something else.
_____________
grow taller
June 4th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is how to use the language of the mind to achieve specific results and goals in life. Broken down by individual words, neuro refers to the five senses as experienced in our mind, including visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory. Linguistic refers to the verbal and nonverbal codes that mental experiences of a person is how they describe what we are experiencing. Programming refers to the way we communicate with ourselves and others to achieve a desired result.
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’m looking for some help putting a short guide on the topic, would it be OK for me to use an article from your blog?