Good Design

Designers for years have been attempting to portray a system as a bipolar system and are continually trying to strike a balance like children on a seesaw. However, this view of a system is not grand enough. It does not do justice to the many aspects of a system. It leaves a product of design without a spatial context that the system is placed in. It does not consider the temporal contexts to which the system must operate. It does not consider what the goal of the system’s users ultimately is. And, finally, it does not determine how personal the experience the user has when using the system. All it thinks about is the material and its manipulation.

I urge designers to abandon the minimalism of this perspective and recognize the array of focuses any system has and how they interplay. You may ask, “What defines good design?” Of course it depends on who you ask because they each have a different set of variables in different ratios. Of course, my variables and ratios can change as well, but I feel there is a minimum for any interactive system and that is the basic interrogatives. Let’s look at them with a different set of terms than the 5W1H:


First, good design keeps the goals of the user prominently in mind to be effective. Second, good design assumes a form that is materially efficient. Form is “what” function will manipulate. Third, good design requires a function that is effortless. Function is about “how” not “why”. Fourth, good design affords itself spatially in a manner that accessible without being intrusive. Fifth, good design affords itself at the time the user needs it. Good design knows the user’s tempo. Sixth, good design is personal, a liberating democratic product without the need for middlemen like an IT department between the user and the five other variables.

A good design is not a necessarily a balance of all six variables in equal ratios. Design can be distorted by many factors to emphasize an audience with specific needs. What do you think the priorities are in the following Venn diagram?


If you say emphasis on goal, formal and temporal aspects you’re right. And there is an audience for such a system. So when you design determine what your audience’s primary needs are and emphasize the variables accordingly. If you can strike a complete balance great, but remember the axiom: If you try to please everyone, you will please no one.

I am borrowing this representation of design in Venn diagrams from Alan Cooper. I think it is a very expressive way to consider the number of variables in a system and what emphasis they are given. When you are only considering form and function are you short changing yourself of the affordances you need as a designer to meet your client’s requirements?

2 Responses to “Good Design”

  1. Design versus Art « relationary Says:

    […] (Good Design’s) path is Conceptual -> Contextual -> Logical -> […]

  2. A Wonderful Life « relationary Says:

    […] have it.  Thirty six questions to lead you through the life of a project.  As I pointed out in Good Design, your emphasis will probably vary based on how these Focuses interplay as will your Perspectives.  […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: