Core77

Sign In / Join Now

Topics
- Product Design
- Process
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Business
- News
- Furniture
- Tools
- Transportation
- Education
- Impact
- Reference
- Video
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Subscribe
Features
- Features
- Designing Women
- Getting Hired
- Design Files
- True I.D. Stories
- Sex-tacular
- In the Details
- Photo Galleries
- Bizarre Inventions
- Questionnaire
- Materials
- Footwear
- Hand Tool School
- Tools & Craft
Awards
Careers
- Careers
- Design Jobs;
- Talent Search;
- Design Salaries;
Firms
- Firms
- Search Firms;
- Firm Projects
Forums
- Forums
- General Discussion
- Students & Schools
- Design Employment
- Sketching
- Software & Technology
- All Forums
More...
- About Us
- Contact Us
- Advertise
- About
- Terms of Use
My Account
- My Account
- Sign In / Join Now
Follow Us
- )
- m
- Y
- '
- S
Search
e

Forum Frenzy

Should a Design Always Be as Minimal as Possible?

A few thoughts on form and exactly how minimal can go wrong

By Core Jr - August 9, 2016

An important aspect of the job of a designer is not only to hone their skills to create, but perhaps more importantly, edit. When designing in the real world, for the sake of budget, longevity and manufacturability, taking an idea and paring it down to its core essentials is imperative—or is it?

A thoughtful discussion that recently surfaced via the Core77 discussion boards stirred up a debate about the idea of minimalism and form. Designer bcpid writes:

Throughout my career, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the more I can focus on proportion and the elimination of as many design elements as possible, and the less I can focus on form (except for trying to reduce or simplify and universalize the form as much as possible / kill decorative elements or anything that would constitute fashion) the better off most designs will be. Early on I used to see complex shapes, or crazy, vehicle-inspired or heavily sculptural forms as something to aspire to, but today I find almost anything more than bare minimalism and reduction, reduction, reduction to be inappropriate for most products that need to live in a variety of settings for any length of time. It's almost like how much can you make the product disappear. I feel like products should almost always be visually simplified to an extent that you aren't compounding the clutter problem people already have.

An automative inspired, technically minimal design disaster: The Adidas Kobe Two

So the question is, is it always best to pare down a design to as few details as possible? Or is this question more complicated than it may seem at first glance? Several readers within the forum considered this a statement worth analyzing further.

Minimalism doesn't always address the importance of a user's emotion

"I do not agree with this sentiment. Your version of minimalism does not always address a user's emotional needs/wants. Evocative forms do. That doesn't mean you have to design a bunch of swoopy forms, but it does mean that you need to consider the emotional element when designing most consumer products.

A very good proof of this is the car market. A Honda Civic is a great car by most practical metrics. It's reliable, gets great gas mileage, and accelerates reasonably fast enough for all but the most extreme practical purposes. A BMW 328i is almost twice as expensive, is way less reliable, gets worse gas mileage, more expensive to maintain, etc. etc. But if you asked most people which car they'd rather have if money was no object, they'd say the BMW. The reason for that is because it's emotionally more fulfilling to own one. They're more fun to drive, they look way cooler, they have a bunch of very nice features (that are by and large unnecessary), and they're a status symbol." - John_Mariello

Form follows function: once a rule, always a rule

If minimalism is incorporated in a design on a shallow level, it may have trouble differentiating itself from the crowd that simply stands as a product that is white, bland and unremarkable, as KenoLeon notes:

"I am not entirely in disagreement, but think it'a a bit simplistic to think in this one dimensional form, consider the following:

Form follows function and less is more right? But what happens when part of that function is differentiating itself from other forms? And doesn't quantity have a quality of it's own? I think every design has qualities beyond it's form and function, there's the context in which it was made and used, shouldn't that be included if we are to correctly judge a design?"

An Apple computer's looks are famously minimal and sleek, but arguably would never be as popular as they are if it weren't for their incredibly intuitive software and quality build—this is the sort of "context" the reader seems to be getting at.

Be very considerate about how exactly you minimize a design

Enter a caption (optional)

One of the powers of good, minimal design is its ability to take a complicated user interface issue and make it remarkably simple to understand, as enjey_w explains below in more detail:

"I've been recently reading through the "Design of Everyday Things," and [design writer Don Norman's] discussion of signifiers seems pertinent here; sometimes a completely minimalistic form doesn't adequately convey to a user exactly how they're supposed to use a product. Off the top of my head, a USB plug is a pretty good example - its completely rectangular profile basically guarantees that I'm going to try to plug it in the wrong way round (probably twice, inexplicably), where as something like an HDMI cable I never get wrong, thanks to the functionally unnecessary angles on the bottom half of the profile."

It's important when designing to use minimal signifiers to inform the user on how to use a product; as shown with this USB/HDMI comparison, it often can lead to less error, better overall understanding of how to use a product and ultimately higher satisfaction.

Edited design is always best—just not at the expense of function

In the end, this overall discussion acts not as a negation of minimalism but as a testament to its effectiveness when cleverly incorporated. Every designer should strive to edit a design down to it's purest form, it's only when a design's function is compromised for the sake of strictly looking clean and clear that overall purpose of the design can be hindered or diminished.

__________

What are your thoughts on design, editing and minimalism? What are good examples of minimalism? Bad examples? Let us know in the comments or contribute your thoughts on the original discussion board post.

Forum Frenzy

8 Comments

Just Pi

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Less means more.

When it comes to product design it is very important to give users only needed features. Otherwise, they will feel overhelmed.

Here is a great article how to deploy minimalism into product design -
http://blog.kanbanery.com/konmarie-product-backlog-sparks-joy-kanbanery/
1

!Report as spam
Just Pi

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Leshttp://blog.kanbanery.com/konmarie-product-backlog-sparks-joy-kanbanery/ s means more. That's true. When it comes to product design it is the same. Here is a very goo article how to deploy minimalism into product design.

!Report as spam
Mark Salerno

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The secret is simple... Every element of a design should be there for a reason. Those reasons more often than not should be emotionally evoked once a the minimal practical function has been optimised. That's gold I just shared :)

!Report as spam
Tom Lever

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The car argument makes no sense. This is a question about minimalism, yet neither the honda civic nor the BMW are minimally designed. BMW's until recently were minimally designed, and perhaps if honda civics weren't designed with halfhearted 'style', and were minimal they wouldn't have a more positive reputation themselves. Yes, BMW has a better brand image but this can't be said to be just because of an adequate 'emotional response' - Rolls Royce, 2000's Audis, 1990's bmw's and Mercs, Bentleys, Range Rovers, the Mercedes G-Wagen - are examples of cars designed minimally (or at least functionally) that have arguably higher reputations than BMW's of today.

!Report as spam
Eric Strebel

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I think you are talking about Car Stylist's here. An example of this would be a car that has fake vents that don't actually vent the air from the breaks or the engine, but have that perceived functionality in the styling of the vehicle.

!Report as spam
Eric Strebel

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Don't even get me started about that book ( I threw that thing away after the first chapter)...Really, a USB connector is the example?!!! Something that was developed by an engineer, How about that crappy round mouse that apple used to sell with the iMac's, that was just bad design all the way around!

!Report as spam
Eric Strebel

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Popular is relative here, Not everyone would agree that Apple computers are popular. They are definitely not as popular as computers that run windows if you count the numbers. Apple products are pretty boring actually.

!Report as spam
Eric Strebel

3 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Don't confuse desirability with marketing Bullshit! In your quote you are switching from a specific car to a brand. Be careful when you make comments like this.

!Report as spam