Everything Equals Design
Most people tend to think of design as what makes something pretty. It’s how you decorate your house, or the style of your clothing, or the look of your car. But design is much more than that and far more important. Design is virtually everything you see, and it’s also everything you don’t see.
Look around you. When you’re on the way to work, notice how you feel sitting in your car. There’s your seat belt, the airbags, the tires, the knobs—and the entire highway system. All of these things were designed.
Many of us have had the frustrating experience of working our way through a user’s manual, only to find ourselves completely lost. We can’t figure out how to set the time on our DVD recorder or assemble a new toy for our kids. It’s an experience that leaves us wondering if we’re behind the times, or just stupid. You’re not ignorant, you’re not behind the times. The thing was designed poorly. It’s not your fault but rather the fault of the design of that object. We live in a society where we aren’t educated about design and we aren’t involved in the design process. So when we come across a design problem, whether it’s in a product or a building or a neighborhood, we feel powerless. We need to get to a point where design is not this intuitive, subjective thing, but a rigorous process in the same way that science is a rigorous process. So how do we know if a design is good? Simply put, good design raises spirits and makes life a little easier. Good design is essentially a matter of problem solving. Engineers solve mechanical problems. Designers solve human problems—or should. If the design does not work well, it may be art, but it is not good design. To make an object work, functionally and aesthetically, it must be placed in its proper context. A chair must fit into the room. The room must fit into the house. The house must fit into the street. The street must fit into the city. While the issue of good design is a pressing question today, we should remember that “good design” is also a phrase from the past that carries a mixed message. From 1949 to 1955 the Museum of Modern Art, along with the Merchandise Mart of Chicago, produced a series of exhibitions and educational programs to promote design excellence in the United States. It was called the Good Design”
program, and its director, Edgar Kaufmann, Jr., was aided by some of the leading designers of the day. In many ways the program was a great success, focusing public and corporate attention on the quality of products, affecting consumer perception and encouraging manufacturers to improve the quality of their products through wider use of professional designers. But the program was also controversial because it promoted a certain number of specific products selected by . To be sure, the criteria of “good design” were not mistaken. All of the products were examples of good design, displaying qualities of beauty as well as functional clarity and efficiency. But the selections also represented the tastes and preferences of a relatively small, elite social group, and many other examples of good design were neglected. Over time, the standards of the Good Design program became a heavy-handed authority in the minds of many people, standing as an obstacle to personal enjoyment of the diverse goods that surround us in our daily lives. The program ended up promoting standards that were too narrow for a country undergoing explosive technological, social and cultural change. Many designers in the past have devised rules and philosophies defining a universal rule for good design. In 1980 accomplished industrial designer Dieter Rams was becoming increasingly concerned by the state of the world around him—“an impenetrable confusion of forms, colors and noises.” Aware that he was a significant contributor to that world, he asked himself an important question: is my design good design? As good design cannot be measured in a finite way he set about expressing the ten most important criteria for what he considered was good design. Subsequently they have been widely accepted as the most concise checklist
Good Design is... Innovative. Useful. Aesthetic. Self-explanatory. Unobtrusive. Honest. Durable. Thorough. Concerned with the environment. As little design as possible.
Good Design Is Innovative.
It does not copy existing product forms, nor does it produce any kind of novelty for the sake of it. The essence of innovation must be clearly seen in all functions of a product. The possibilities in this respect are by no means exhausted. Technological development keeps offering new chances for innovative solutions.
Design Thinking
“Design thinking” is a term being used today to define a way of thinking that produces transformative innovation. While the term feels trendy, the way of thinking is hardly new. One can think of the cave painters in Lascaux 25,000 years ago as design thinkers—they first began to collect data about the world they experienced, express that data by creating visual stories, document those stories in a way that could be shared into the future, and use that data to create new and innovative ways to solve their problems. For designers, “design thinking” is something that comes naturally in the process of innovation. It has gained popularity because it makes it easier for those outside the design industry to focus the idea of design as a way of thinking about solving problems, a way of creating strategy by experiencing it rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise, and a way of creating and capturing value. The definition, like that of good design, differs from person to person, but these are some general focuses of design thinking: A Focus on Customers/Users. It’s not about the company and how your business is structured. The customer doesn’t care about that. They are care about doing their tasks and achieving their goals within their limits. Design thinking begins with those.
Finding Alternatives. Designing isn’t about choosing between multiple options, it’s about creating those options. It’s this finding of multiple solutions to problems that sets designers apart. Ideation and Prototyping. The way we find those solutions is through brainstorming and then, importantly, building models to test the solutions out. One prototype doesn’t necessarily represent the solution, only one solution. It’s not uncommon for several different prototypes to be combined into a single product. A Wide Range of Influences. Because design touches on so many subject areas (psychology, ergonomics, economics, engineering, architecture, art, etc.), designers should bring to the table a broad, multidisciplinary spectrum of ideas from which to draw inspiration and solutions. Emotion. In analytical thinking, emotion is seen as an impediment to logic and making the right choices. In design, decisions without an emotional component are lifeless.
German researcher Hedwig von Restorff discovered that when one item sticks out from the rest, it is more likely to be remembered. Not only more likely to be remembered, this image or word or fact makes all the other information seem less important. A magnificent fireplace makes home buyers less likely to remember the crack in the tile. This effect occurs on two levels: difference in context and difference in experience; both which are important when working on a design. Difference in context is when you consciously highlight or emphasize a specific element, so that it is visually separated and distinct from the rest of the design ele− ments. In this way, you increase the likelihood for this particular element to be remembered, which you can take advantage of. Difference in experience occurs when a viewer sees something that stands out and sep− arates itself from earlier experiences. Take advantage of the Restorff Effect by highlighting a key elements in a design, but not everything. If ev− erything is highlighted, nothing is. Unusual words, sen− tence constructions, and images are better remember than more typical ones. The more creative and distinct you can make your work, the higher are chances for it to be remembered by viewers.
Good Design Is Useful.
A product is bought in order to be used. It must serve a defined purpose—in both primary and additional functions. The most important task of design is to optimise the utility of a product.
Usability and Flexibility In everyday life, usability is a fairly straightforward concept. A thing is usable if we can use it to accomplish what we want. Most people find a hammer usable for driving a nail into the wall. Not so many people find the VCR timer function usable for recording the late night movie. It is designing’s biggest paradox: We demand more and more from the stuff in our lives—more features, more function, more power—and yet we also increasingly demand that it be easy to use. It is a well-known design principle that the more a product increases its flexibility, the less usable it becomes. By trying to offer a wider scope of functionality and utilities a product becomes more complex. The higher the complexity the greater the usability issues. This is also a challenge among designers, they often make the mistake of adding as many features as possible expecting this to make the product better. What needs to be considered is the cost vs. Benefit of each feature both in isolation and in consideration of the other functionality and the product as a whole. This is why we have both specialized products and more general products, the general products can do more but almost never as well as the specialized product. For example, a games console provides a better gaming experience than that experience using your computer, which was designed to support vast and various types of software.
A good design that clearly shows this principle is the Swiss army knife. This classic knife was invented in 1891 by the cutler Karl Elsener, who was outraged that his national army was equipped with German knives. Anything the Germans could do, the Swiss would do better. Sure enough, Elsener’s ingenious knife was taken up by the Swiss army, and yes, Swiss soldiers still use them. Elsener started the company Victorinox, which still produces the genuine Swiss army knives today. They have been carried in rucksacks several times to the top of Mount Everest, and they are standard issue equipment on board NASA space shuttles. Victorinox’s line of Swiss army knives range from simple one or two blades to the massive and unwieldy Giant. This knife has 85 features including a fish-hook disgorder and a golf club face-cleaner and weighs 2 pounds. The usability/flexibility tradeoff can be easily seen here. The main Swiss army blade is by far the most commonly used feature in all of the Swiss army lines. Imagine having to whittle a stick with a knife handle that takes two hands to hold. The more features Swiss army knives have, the less they become practical. In the case of the Giant, they are only being sold to collectors in a very limited quantity. The key to a successful Swiss army design is to find exactly which feature each particular user wants and eliminate the remaining.
Usable
Flexible
In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto’s Principle. The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto’s case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran’s initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know
The 80/20 rule is useful for focusing resources and, in turn, realizing greater features in design. For example, if the critical 20 percent of a product’s features are used 80 percent of the time, design resources should focus mainly on these features. The remaining 80 percent of the product should be downplayed or removed in order to maximize the usability of the design. Focusing on or improving features that are not in the first 20 percent may in-
that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources.
troduce new errors in the product. The rule is best utilized when time or resources are of the essence, and only the most important aspects of the design should be focused on. The other less-important or noncritical elements should be removed from the design. A good way of implementing the 80/20 rule into the design process is to consider and list out the features or elements of the design and then think about how much time, effort and resources are spent on each.
Good Design Is Aesthetic.
The aesthetic quality of a product—and the fascination it inspires—is an integral part of the its utility. Without doubt, it is uncomfortable and tiring to have to put up with products that are confusing, that get on your nerves, that you are unable to relate to. However, it has always been a hard task to argue about aesthetic quality, for two reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to talk about anything visual, since words have a different meaning for different people. Secondly, aesthetic quality deals with details, subtle shades, harmony and the equilibrium of a whole variety of visual elements. A good eye is required, schooled by years and years of experience, in order to be able to draw the right conclusion.
Attractive Things Work Better
Much like the relationships people have with each other, people have with the objects they own. When the object that they are using is more aesthetically appealing, it is usually perceived to be easier to use and to work better than less-attractive designs, even if the two designs work the same. Aesthetic designs look easier to use and have a higher probability of being used. These perceptions bias subsequent interactions and are resistant to change. Early impressions of a design effect how a person sees the value of it over a long period of time. This is similar to how people perceive each other—first impressions play a large role in how long term attitudes are formed towards someone. It is important to understand the role emotion plays in the relationships people form with the objects they own. A design that fosters positive feelings over a long time may end up getting a name from its user, further illustrating this bond between object and owner. This rarely happens with objects that stir negative emotions. Users of designs that are aesthetically pleasing also tend to overlook minor glitches or other problems that may occur in its design, again, because of that initial positive relationship that was established.
This phenomenon is further illustrated by Don Norman (from “The Design of Everyday Things”):
In the early days of the personal computer, all the display screens were black and white. When color screens were first introduced, I did not understand their popularity. In those days, color was primarily used either to highlight text or to add superfluous screen decoration. From a cognitive point of view, color added no value that could not be provided with the appropriate use of shading. But despite the fact that the interface community could find no scientific benefit, businesses insisted on buying color monitors. Obviously, color was fulfilling some need, but one we could not measure. In order to understand this phenomenon, I borrowed a color display to use with my computer. After the allocated time, I was convinced that my assessment had been correct—color added no discernible value for everyday work. However, I refused to give up the color display. Although my reasoning told me that color was unimportant, my emotional reaction told me otherwise.
In the early 1940s, Charles and Ray Eames experimented with wood-molding techniques that would have profound effects on the design world. Their discoveries led to a commission from the U.S. Navy in 1942 to develop plywood splints, stretchers, and glider shells molded under heat and pressure. After World War II, they adapted the technology to create high-quality chairs that could be mass-produced. The process eliminated extraneous wood, which reduced the weight and visual profile of the chair and established a basis for modern furniture design. The Eames Chair Wood is in the permanent collection of New York’s Museum of Modern Art and Time magazine named it the Best Design of the 20th Century. Although the Eames Chair Wood was an extremely innovative design that revolutionized chairs, the sleek and aesthetic profile is mainly why it is still valued to this day. Collectors pay extraordinary amounts of money to own an original production. But the chair wasn’t perfect. It had serious problems with the rubber “shock mounts” that connected the back of the chair to the upper lumbar support becoming brittle and breaking off with too much pressure. These flaws are overlooked however, because of its overwhelming sleek aesthetic.
Good Design Is SelfExplanatory
It helps a product to be understood. It clarifies the structure of the product. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory and saves you the long, tedious perusal of the operating manual.
Universal Accessibility
“Accessible Design” calls for design that includes the needs of people whose physical, mental, or environmental conditions limit their performance. “Universal Design” aims to extend standard design principles to include people of all ages and abilities, but remains at the level of generality—so does not address all the specific needs of any particular disability. But even for people who do not have any specific physical or mental characteristics that affect use, it has been found that adopting universal design principles can reduce fatigue, increase speed, decrease errors, and decrease learning time for all users. In many ways, universal design addresses the larger issues of usability making things easier for everyone. There are basically four different characteristics of accessible designs: perceptibility, operability, simplicity and forgiveness. Perceptibility occurs when everyone can perceive a design, regardless of sensory ability. This means presenting information in redundant and universal methods (iconic symbols) and positioning information and controls so all users can see and interact with them. Operability occurs when everyone can use a design no matter what their physical ability. Like perceptibility this means positioning the controls so any person can interact with them, but also designing them in a way that minimizes physical strain or repetitive actions. Simplicity is just that: a simple design is easier to understand. Complexity should be kept to a minimal in order to have the most universal usability. Forgiveness occurs when the design minimizes the impact of user error. Good use of affordances and constraints (to be discussed next) prevent errors from occurring in the first place, and confirmations and reversible actions reduces the consequences of error.
An affordance is the design aspect of an object that suggests how the object should be used. For example, when we hold a pencil in such a way that it fits comfortably in the hand, the pencil affords being held in this way as a result of its length, width, weight and texture, all with respect to the size, configuration and musculature of the hand. Affordances provide strong clues to the operation of things. Knobs are for turning, balls are for throwing or bouncing and chairs are for sitting on. When affordances are utilized, the user knows what to do by just looking; no instructions or pictures are required.
A classic example of affordances in everyday design are doors. A door with a knob or handle used to open it automatically gives a clue to pull a door rather than push it. The opposite goes with a panel or push-bar door. A well-designed door has no need for a sign that prompts the user to either push or pull, as the design already affords it.
Good Design Is Unobtrusive
Products that satisfy this criterion are tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained leaving room for the user’s self-expression.
Good design is not art. The philosophy of “function beore form” encourages design to be grounded on the practical, useful forms inherent in the application. This avoids gratuitous decoration but elevates the human task and the meaning of the object as the principle aesthetic. Some critics believe that this means all design should be minimal and bland. This is not, however, the end result of the philosophy “Function before form” was made famous by the American architect Louis Sullivan and it became a motto of modern thinking in the 20th Century. It stresses the importance of thinking about how the object will be used during the design process. This does not mean the design need be minimal or without ornament at all, it simply means that above all other aspects the design must work. A designer must realize that in the end they are designing a product that will be used, not a piece of art that will only be of aesthetic value.
Function
Form
Good Design Is Honest
An honestly-designed product must not claim features it does not have —being more innovative, more efficient, of higher value. It must not influence or manipulate buyers and users.
Prototyping
Prototyping is the creation of simple, incomplete models or mockups of a design. Prototyping techniques involve developing representations of a target system for evaluation and testing purposes. It is an essential element of an iterative design approach, where designs are created, evaluated, and refined with the results of testing at each cycle feeding into the design focus of the next cycle. Prototypes can range from extremely simple sketches (low-fidelity prototypes) to full systems that contain nearly all the functionality of the final system (high-fidelity prototypes). Prototyping is problem-solving in three dimensions. A designer can prototype just about anything—a new product or service, a website or a new space. Ranging from simple proof-of-concept models to looks-like/works-like prototypes that are practically finished products, prototyping lets the designer fail early to succeed sooner. Prototyping takes on many different formats in different fields of design. In graphic design the thumbnail is a small, rapidly-drawn sketch used to explore visual ideas that focuses on rough layout issues. A general design approach is to quickly draw a large number of thumbnails as a way of brainstorming and exploring design variations, or laying out thumbnails as spreads of a publication. Rapid prototyping is quickly generating mockups of what a system will look like. It may be done with paper prototyping methods, such as with quick sketches. Rapid prototyping systems are software systems, such as HyperCard, Director, or RAD tools, that let you quickly display interface elements and define some behavior for them to obtain a sense of the interaction and the capabilities of the fully-implemented system. These prototypes are useful for determining the target of the development project, doing many types of user testing, and spotting unanticipated complexities in the design.
Good design is backed up by repeated testing.
Good Design Is Durable
It is nothing trendy that might be out-of-date tomorrow. This is one of the major differences between well-designed products and trivial objects for a waste-producing society. Waste must no longer be tolerated.
Modularity is a structural principle used to manage complexity in a system. It involves identifying functional clusters of similarity in systems, and then transforming the clusters into interdependent self-contained systems that are called modules. Computers are a good example of modular systems: different parts can be replaced or upgraded and the computer will still operate normally. If the design were not modular, the entire system would have to be replaced when one part malfunctions. The result of a successful modular design is an overall reduction of system complexity, and a decentralization of system architecture, which improves reliability, Modularity allows the user the ability to upgrade the design. One problem that many companies face is that technology advances faster than the full life of a product, which frustrates the user. By localizing performance improvements in a sequence of upgradable modules of the product, a company can better manage the introduction of rapidly improving products. Specifically, modular upgradability can reduce the need for slowing the pace of innovation or forgoing upgrade pricing. The additional flexibility in pricing and timing makes the modular, upgradable approach preferable to an integrated architecture, even in some situations where there may be distinct performance or costrelated disadvantages to pursuing it.
The AK-47 kills 250,000 people every year. It is cheap, you can find it everywhere, it has changed the face of war and it has allowed ragtag militias to challenge the armies of major powers. Why? Because it is so durable that when it gets dirty and wet it keeps on firing. With only nine parts, the AK-47 is easy to dismantle and maintain. Design work on the AK began by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1944. In 1946 the rifle was presented for official military trials, a year later the fixed stock version was introduced into service with select units of the Red Army. The AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces in 1949. It is also used by the majority of the member states of the former Warsaw Pact. The AK-47 was also used as a basis for the development of countless other types of individual and crew-served firearms. For a modern assault rifle, the AK-47 isn’t that effective. It’s less accurate than an assault rifle really should be; in many cases only a little better than a submachine gun. The safety catch/selector switch is comparatively difficult and noisy to operate: and the bolt doesn’t lock open when the magazine is empty, so that a round must be chambered manually after each reloading. Yet because of its durability and simplicity, it has been the most popular firearm in the world for the last 50 years. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to fire.
Good Design Is Thorough
Thoroughness and accuracy of design are synonymous with the product and its functions, as seen through the eyes of the user.
When building a house, there are certain very specific things that a builder will do: roofing shingles are laid so that the higher shingles overlap the lower ones. Flashing is placed over the top of newly installed windows. These specific practices protect the house from water damage, and they flow from a single, general principle: that water needs to run off of a house. All good design considers all the ways in which it can fail and backs them up. The method of using more elements than is necessary to ensure the success of a design is redundancy. When a building or other structure is being designed, redundancy is seen in repeating load-bearing elements. A suspension bridge is designed in a way that if one of the suspensions breaks, there are more to help keep the bridge up. Redundancy can be found in the design of communication. The most effective way of learning information is by presenting it in ways that affect more than one of the senses. Most presentations involve the use of text, audio and video all about the same subject to help the viewer retain the most information. Sometimes redundancy is referred to as a “back-up� to part of, or whole, system. An example would be a back-up parachute or a spare-tire on a vehicle. This is sometimes referred to as passive redundancy, the simplest form of redundancy.
Good Design Is Concerned With The Environment
Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment.
Sustainability
Like any good design, sustainable design involves delivering the best performance or result for the least cost over the long term. Sustainable design involves the strategic use of design to meet current and future human needs without compromising the environment. It includes (re)design of products, processes, services or systems to tackle imbalances or trade-offs between the demands of society, the environment and the economy and, ultimately, restoration of damage already done. A shorter term for ‘sustainable development’, sustainability aims for social and economic well-being for everyone, locally and globally, now and in the future, without compromising the long-term wellbeing of the environment. The crux is balancing the dynamic between the social, environmental and economic impact of a business or organization. The simplest definition is that of improving quality of life across the board, including ensuring quality of life for future generations without losing sight of the need for a rich and diverse natural world. The term sustainable design is often used interchangeably with related terms such as eco-design or design for environment, or green design (used
less these days). This is because sustainable design evolved from the attempt to incorporate environmental considerations into design. Design is utterly crucial to moving towards a more sustainable future —by rethinking how we deliver products and their benefits without decimating the world around us, or compromising the well-being of others (now or in the future); sustainability is a key to enhanced performance and greater competitiveness. As well as minimizing environmental impact, sustainable design also involves optimizing performance and well-being. It can also aid business competitiveness which has led some to the notion of a ‘triple bottom line’. The triple bottom line seeks to expand the conventional economic or financial focus of the ‘bottom line’ to include social and environmental calculations. This reflect the three key pillars of sustainability which are: Social, Environmental and Economic. The word ‘pillar’ suggests separate, static entities when in fact there is a dynamic between all three elements. It might be easier to think of them as three balls in a juggling act—the trick is to keep them working together in a simple, smooth process.
Materials. Using less material (light weighting), fewer materials (making it easier to recycle) and if possible avoiding toxic substances and choosing renewable or recycled/recyclable.
Disassembly. Making things easy to take apart so they can be repaired, serviced, upgraded, remanufactured, or recycled, such as through modular design, or smart materials which can self-disassemble when needed.
Energy. Both in production (which would mean looking at the manufacturing process), and in use and disposal. This includes minimizing energy use, moving to the use of renewable energy, and extracting energy from waste.
Life Cycle. Keeping a product, or its parts or materials, in productive use for their optimal lifespan, so slowing or preventing the linear flow of materials from extraction and processing to disposal.
Transportation. Sourcing a renewable, impeccably green material which you ship four times round the world may not be as sustainable as something a little less clean from down the road.
An average offic worker will throw a piece of paper larger than what printed on) ever to twelve minut
ce w away r (a bit t this is ry ten tes.
The amount of copy paper used in the United States in one year consumes 15.8 million tons of wood, enough to build 1 million US homes. Paper doesn’t last forever. It can only be recycled so many times before the grains start to break down and become unusable, making it necessary to use trees again. The sustainable solution to this problem is synthetic paper. Unlike the paper with which we are familiar, synthetic paper does not use any wood pulp or cotton fiber but is made from plastic resins and inorganic fillers. Made in such a way to be upcyclable, the synthetic “paper” can be melted down and reused in perpetuity, thus sparing trees and reducing toxins in the earth’s ecosystem.
Good Design Is As Little Design As Possible
Back to purity, back to simplicity.
Ockham’s razor asserts that simplicity is preferred to complexity in design. Many variations of the principle exist, each adapted to address the particulars of a field or domain of knowledge. Implicit in Ockham’s razor is the idea that unnecessary elements decrease a design’s efficiency, and increase the probability of unanticipated consequences. Unnecessary weight, whether physical, visual, or cognitive, degrades performance. Unnecessary design elements have the potential to fail or create problems. There is also an aesthetic appeal to the principle, which likens the removing of unnecessary elements from a design to the removal of impurities from a solution, the design is a cleaner, purer result. Use Ockham’s razor to evaluate and select among multiple, functionally equivalent designs. Functional equivalence here refers to comparable performance of a design on common measures. For example, given two functionally equivalent displays—equal in information content and readability—select the display with the fewest visual elements. Evaluate each element within the selected design and remove as many as possible without compromising function. Finally, minimize the expression of remaining elements as much as possible without compromising function.
Simple
Complex
EVERYTHING =
= DESIGN It has been said that “if you want to see the sole of a culture, look at what it builds”. It could also be said that if you want to understand what a living culture stands for, look at what it designs, produces, uses and values, look at its designed images, objects and places. Throughout time, telling images, objects and places were conceived, designed and fabricated by artists and designers living within their respective cultures. Throughout time, humans designed in order to survive and advance their individual and collective understanding and capabilities.
to be light and in fact, be very heavy. A designed image, object or place may look to be of high quality and in fact be less than reliable. It is incumbent then that designers create their designs in ways that express what are truly the qualities and characteristics inherent in their designs. This must be done in ways that enable ordinary people to see and understand what is before them. In other words, designed things ought to state as clearly as possible, through their overall form and as presented or made visible in verbal and non verbal language, what the inherent qualities are in designs and then It is important, yet sometimes difficult task, for deliver these qualities accordingly. people to accept design that is good and reject the bad. People rely on what they know and what they Once done, a “good design” would be more easily see. Often, people must rely on their interpretation recognized and those qualities and characteristics of a design and those qualities they think they see that represent and deliver “goodness” would be and feel are inherent in a design. Few people, other obvious, reinforced and in place. The more often than designers are trained to read the “code” which designers work this way, the more confidence peois often non verbal and visual information found ple will have in those things we design improving in things designed. useful communications between designer and end user. Good design makes our lives easier, whether A device may look strong and in fact, be weak. It we notice it or not. With so much around us, why may look simple and be complicated. It may appear should we let bad design clog our landscape?