The color hurts my eyes. The heading font sizes look out of place. I think this site needs some design principles.
This. They should have used something more towards orange, and a bit less saturated.
Design Principles
51–60 of 76 posts
Re: Design Principles
#52I think I will stick with the 10 principles of Dieter Rams: Good design is innovative Good design makes a product useful Good design is aesthetic Good design makes a product understandable Good design is unobtrusive Good design is honest Good design is long-lasting Good design is thorough down to the last detail Good design is environmentally-friendly Good design is as little design as possible
> Good design is unobtrusive
This one is forgotten too often. A good design brings the content forward, it doesn't hide it.
Re: Design Principles
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but then I don't really see what purpose the first rule serves. I'd maybe put it last and rephrase it to something like "Good design is innovative when necessary".
Good design doesn’t follow necessity it leads it.. removing head phone jack as example of good (controversial) design.
Removing the headphone jack is an example of terrible design. How does it make the product more useful?
Re: Design Principles
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, the page just copied Reclam's design used for almost every Reclam book there is: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ae3ah0jPL...
I bet that for folks who are designers and get the reference his choice makes perfect sense and it might even be nice. But for me, most importantly, after loading the page it was unclear what to do. Use the menu? Scroll? I don't think it's good design for users to have to guess where the content is or what they are expected to do.
you're not a design person you wouldn't understand (LOL)
Re: Design Principles
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a microwave oven with dozens of buttons don't follow the other rules. So I think you can see all ten rules as a complete set.
Yeah, but then I don't really see what purpose the first rule serves. I'd maybe put it last and rephrase it to something like "Good design is innovative when necessary".
Could it be interpreted two ways?*
If the purpose of design is to solve a truly valuable problem or introduce pleasure to a process, and if these possibilities—if we're honest with ourselves—do not exist to be solved, one cannot innovate, therefore one cannot design.
A honeypot to the those who see design as surface, a challenge and call to arms to those who see it as more?
(*I'm curious if anyone knows what this type of phrase is, one that can be interpreted in two different, opposing ways. Best I can tell is _polysemy_)
Re: Design Principles
#56I think I will stick with the 10 principles of Dieter Rams: Good design is innovative Good design makes a product useful Good design is aesthetic Good design makes a product understandable Good design is unobtrusive Good design is honest Good design is long-lasting Good design is thorough down to the last detail Good design is environmentally-friendly Good design is as little design as possible
I agree with the last 9, but I have my quarrels with the first one. It just begs for people to make innovative designs even though the original one worked perfectly. Like a microwave oven with dozens of buttons even though the one with two dials (power, time) and the door-opener button works 99% of the time.
The first rule to me reads this way: "If your design follows the other nine rules and is not innovative it means that there is an old design that already followed the other nine rules, therefore you should stick with the old one."
Which makes sense to me, it reads like a deeper "do not reinvent the wheel".
Re: Design Principles
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good design doesn’t follow necessity it leads it.. removing head phone jack as example of good (controversial) design.
Removing the headphone jack is an example of terrible design. How does it make the product more useful?
It's implicit that "more useful" means for users - but removing the headphone jack is more useful for the manufacturer (which makes it terrible by my standards too, but not inexplicable).
Re: Design Principles
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the last 9, but I have my quarrels with the first one. It just begs for people to make innovative designs even though the original one worked perfectly. Like a microwave oven with dozens of buttons even though the one with two dials (power, time) and the door-opener button works 99% of the time.
I also agree that the first (being innovative) isn't quite right. To be innovative depends on the state of innovation of what everyone else is doing. To be innovative you have to do something new, which is different from what's already been doing. So it's implying that you have to be different to have good design. I don't agree that good design has to be different. All the rest are spot on in my opinion.
I think we can save Rams' list by stipulating the following: design is an activity. If you don't need to innovate, you don't need design, you should be following prescribed/conventional practices. The final rule underlines the sentiment: whenever you engage in design, you should only do as much of it (innovation) as you need.
Architects, for example, are always dealing with slightly unique or novel spatial circumstances, which is why they are considered designers. Building identical suburban houses from a pattern book is not design -- and it's not innovative.
I think Rams' thoughts do all make sense if seen in this light.
Re: Design Principles
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a microwave oven with dozens of buttons don't follow the other rules. So I think you can see all ten rules as a complete set.
Yeah, but then I don't really see what purpose the first rule serves. I'd maybe put it last and rephrase it to something like "Good design is innovative when necessary".
If what you are doing is not innovative, it's not (good) design. It might be valuable but it's something else.
The comments here that disagree with Rams' first rule seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse and assuming that Rams is offering a prescriptive list for would-be designers. I think he's just describing what he thinks constitutes good design. It is not an injunction to innovate: it is an observation that "design" which does not innovate is inconsequential.
Re: Design Principles
#60The color hurts my eyes. The heading font sizes look out of place. I think this site needs some design principles.
Seriously, the page just copied Reclam's design used for almost every Reclam book there is: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ae3ah0jPL...
Also looks similar to the JavaScript community style. Since JS determines behaviour on the web, they're likely to have the same audience.