A prerequisite for good design is when distinction between design and function becomes diffuse/overlapping.

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.

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

@ 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.

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…

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

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

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)