[Closed] "Good" design

aesthetics or utility.

a rigid fixie with no brakes looks [s]better[/s] cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.

to add to that i have a friend who is a big stark fan and has one of the iconic alessi lemon sqeezers however he bought it in the gold coloured finish - which has a lable attached saying "warning not to be used, citric acis will remove finish" it's not a great lemon squeezer to start with but that takes the biscuit.

[img] [/img]

a rigid fixie with no brakes looks better cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.

*Awaits the arrival of the evangelic, hair shirt brigade to argue for the former*

Durrrr!

Chair with beer fridge? No brainer surely?

Depends on the purpose of the design though surely? The "design goal" as they say.

The first chair is primarily nice to look at, the second is primarily nice to sit on.

We had a set of the Eames chairs when I was a kid - look great, but very uncomfortable on the back as the wire frame digs in, and the top part comes loose from the lower frame, so not well designed. I am a fan of some of his other chairs though.

Having said that - you can't compare those two chairs, as they perform different functions...... dining chair and living room chair.

In my opinion neither are good design.

Yeah and in some cases the "design goal" is to provide a talking point at someone's deeply tedious dinner party.

The fixie thing is a good example actually - I understand that in London at the moment there are as many people pushing them as riding them.

ash500, I bet that for most La-Z-Boy owners the distinction between living room and dining room is distinctly hazy. 🙂

I like this, its called "How High the Moon", not to uncomfy either...

[img] [/img]

[i]a rigid fixie with no brakes looks better cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.[/i]

Let me decide, I have two bike at the moment

[img] http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yt6dtm&outx=800&quality=70 [/img]
[img] http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yw92jm&outx=800&quality=70 [/img]

Normally the second one has a standard 26" wheel on it. I specced the SS to look clean and I think it is beautiful and is absolutely ideal for blasting around the New Forest. The Scott I have had for 10 years and is absolutely perfect for 90% of the riding I do.

I think I would rather ride both.

There was a big discussion about this in landscaping circles - is 'good design' restricted to mega budget, high impact schemes in fantastic sites or is it just as applicable to someone who met the brief perfectly with a well thought out solution, but where the brief/budget/site meant it was never going to be a star of their portfolio.

The other extreme is the high impact scheme that has got so many small flaws that mean that it would be a nightmare to live with but which look great on camera and in the glossy mags. Joe public would probably love the look of these but wouldn't spot the pitfalls until the thing was actually built, and of course after shelling out loads of cash they're never going to admit to them...

So no, good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

whats that calender where you can tell when it is by the colour of the day? design classic and absolute shite (imo)

graduated in design and moved into engineering because i just cant deal with design types!

So no, good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

they are if the brief is to create the most aesthetic (garden) possible.

designing good products that can be lived with and look good is far more difficult. Ipod? design classic? maybe. influential? certainly look at how white is still infecting everything.

they are if the brief is to create the most aesthetic (garden) possible.

That's why I said 'not necessarily'. If a client wants a creative, artistic statement and doesn't care about where the kids will play, where they'll hang the washing, where they can sit in the sun/shade, how many hours a week they'll spend maintaining it etc etc then the gloves are off!

good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

yep, its entirely subjective. Do you think that the spitfire was designed to look cool or be agile/fast/effective? Sometimes looking great and working great combine, other times they don't.

It's all personal taste isnt it. Silly question really.

I'd rather have functional machined items that are designed to do their job properly and efficiently than something that looks good. Obviously I'd like both if possible but I weight to the former, but thats hardly surprising when you realise my life revolves around engineering rather than art.

Flipping it around a bit.

Why do some products work fine but look sh1te?

How hard is it to make something look a little bit nice without degrading its performance?

How hard is it to make something look a little bit nice without degrading its performance?

££££££££££

Actually if you're talking about Spitfire, the Hurricane was a more effective warplane as it could be repaired quickly and simply and put back in the air within hours.

aP, I'd like an entire room of that furniture so i could feel like I was in a 3D ZX Spectrum game.

[img] [/img]
/p>

[img] [/img]

Good design is easy. What is difficult is getting the engineering right and within a sensible budget. Quality costs a lot of money, but you can't always tell when looking at a product.

It is all subjective. Its a bit like saying "Define Quality". It depends on what you require from the product, what your specifications are. If a designer meets the brief fully even exceeding it, it could be argued that he has designed a Quality product. Whether it goes on to be a 'design classic' depends on its uptake in the market place, which is where the marketing men come in making you think that you want/need the product. The Stark Juicer is classic form over function and thus to me is not a quality product, It does look nice though!

Hi all by the way, I've just joined after avidly reading the forums (fora for the pedantic)! for a couple of months. 🙂

Good way to make an entrance, Jackson Pollock!

Aesthetics is always gonna be a very subjective thing. The 'rules' are tied up with culture, and expectation of the viewer. What appears aesthetically pleasing to Westerners, may not be, to those in the East. Etc.

I remember having this argument with a mate of mine, many years ago. He really liked the Rietveld house, whereas I said it was a glorified Portakabin.

[img] [/img]

My best summing up, of what is 'good' design, is something that 'its' the purpose. Not necessarily the best engineering solution, but something that works well, and is a pleasure to behold.

Take the London bus. I think there can be no argument; the Routemaster was simply a better aesthetic solution, than the more modern alternatives.

[img] [/img]

Maybe it's the curves, the 'cuteness' of the 'face' at the front. Certainly, they always felt more luxurious, than the far more stark and functional modern versions.

I think it's also something we, as Humans, find instinctively 'comfortable' with. We are praps more predisposed towards curved lines, soft edges, something that evokes nature, maybe. And then there's the deep, subconsciously sexual nature of some objects; people seem to prefer things that might feel more pleasurable to hold, or run your fingers over.

On a purely visual level, I think simpler, bold shapes can often work better than intricate designs, in many applications. Again, rounded shapes are more popular than hard, straight edges. Think of company logos; how many are comprised using only straight-sided geometrical shapes? Nike, McDonalds, Apple, Shell, etc. Even companies like BMW, VW and Mercedes involve a circle.

And then there's the relationship between the logo/design, and the product/service/sensation offered.

Remember the old BT logo? Far, far better at signifying the service, than the new one.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Much better, I think, than the new one. The whole logo+text+colour scheme thing was a winner; instantly recognisable, and something you could feel comfortable with.

I mean, wtf is this about?

[img] [/img]

Nice, but does it really sa 'telecom', to you?

And don't get me started on this piece of shit:

[img] [/img]

So, a very subjective and emotive topic. But a very exciting one. I'm always arguing about form v function with my web coding mate. I argue that it has to look good; it's a form of visual media. He is inertested only in how it works. I say that it's aesthetic appeal is integral to it's function...

Which chair would you rather sit in?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

(One will cost significantly more than the other)

pmsl at rudeboys description of the 2012 olymic logo

RB, yea the second one will cost more as they collapse and the screws pull out the joints far too easily, horrendous design if you ask me. Thus by the time you've replaced it with something more substantial...........

buy cheep, buy twice.

Rudeboy, there seems to be a heavy element of nostalgia in your choices. I think the new BT logo is great, why restrict yourself to a clunky two-colour one in this day and age? And what does the old one actually evoke, shorn of all other context?

Agree with OP - people mix up design and looks.

Best designed car I've ever driven is my Ford Mondeo - everything is just right (apart from stupid clock).

Good design - performs its function with economy and elegance. good design is almost always elegant

TJ, that sounds pretty much spot on. Maybe that's the reason that the iPod is still considered the benchmark in MP3 players, despite potentially better, cheaper solutions being available.

For me at least, the iPod is subtle, understated and easy to use. Using it is intuitive and quick. It just works.

Designers give you something that looks nice
Engineers give you something that works well
Design Engineers give you both 8)

the GF is currently completing her diploma in Product Design. another house mate is in the same position too, and two of our neighbours, and most of their friends.

some of them seem unable to pick things up without commenting on some detail or improvement that could be made.

gets a little tedious at times. "we're 'dsigners', it's our job" i get told.

there is another Eames chair that you could compare to the Lay-Z-boy

[img] [/img]

now that i would gladly have in my living room. just need ~£3000.

What about the humble paperclip- fantastically designed. Its form is completely dictated by its function. Its beautiful in its simplicity. Very difficult to improve upon, yet is not often thought of as a 'Design Classic' and is used by a vast number of end users.

I'm not an arty farty type by the way, just a newly redundant Quality Manager. Usually having to reconcile what designers have 'conceptualized' with what the production engineers say is possible, to meet the expectations and specifications of the customer. Anyone got a job for me!? 😆

Thanks for stopping me from googling for that Eames chair, alpin. Perfect example of ticking all the boxes.

I think the new BT logo is great.

Really? You're just trolling I hope.

you'd be supprised how much 'improvement' work goes on with paperclips. Usualy trying to design them to use less and less metal or speed up production. Which brings me to my next point..............

No one's mentioned cost and time (have they)? If someone made that ikea chair RB posted comfortable and druable for the same price, then it would be a great design. As it is it gave me pins and needles in my legs and fell to pices.

I did Product Design Alpin, yep it drives people mad 🙂 They gave us a project to do on weather vanes once, amazing how many there are once you start looking 😳

The flipside though is people always saying to you "I know something you could design!!! How about a widget that does....." can I just stop you there, what is your budget, what tooling do you have....oh...you don't actually have any money do you!

... the iPod is still considered the benchmark in MP3 players, despite potentially better, cheaper solutions being available

I gave mine to my wife:
* the wheel thing is far too sensitive - poor engineering
* the product tie-in to a non-standard USB cable is a triumph of marketing over design

Good design - performs its function with economy and elegance. good design is almost always elegant

I'm not sure about the elegant bit - I've got a great carrot grater at home, it's perfectly designed for the job, but could hardly be called elegant. Spot on about the economy, though.

When I visited the FIAT factory I had a chat with the designers about the sort of car they liked working on best. They all said that from a design point of view, coming up with a car that had an RRP of under 7k, and huge service intervals was a much more satifying challenge than something exotic that would sell for the price of an average house.

Yeah, I'm aware that Charles Eames designed some much more comfy and normal looking chairs than the one I posted. The "wire" chair is a case in point though - they must have been very cheap to manufacture (all of our uni halls of residence came supplied with one) but now fetch big money second hand in poncey boutiques.

You're just trolling I hope.

No, I like it. It's distinctive and evocative (reminds me of stuff like globes and satellite dishes) without actually looking like anything in particular. The fact that it's usually found at the top of bills for rip-off connection charges is hardly the designer's fault.

The designer of the Ford Ka said that he wanted every part of it to be distinctly identifiable even when it was broken up in a scrap yard. That sounds like the wrong way of going about things to me.

Good design depends(just as has been said already) on answering the brief in hand.

No design for any item could ever meet all possible criteria so to argue whether one item is a better example of design compared to another would depend on, primarily, whether they were both designed with the same brief in mind.

Using the OP example, if that was a university project to design, say, the world's most comfortable chair irrespective of cost, example one would quite clearly have failed the brief quite spectacularly.

If, however, the brief was to design a piece of modern furniture as art to rival the best Art Nouveau Furniture, then example two would fail equally as badly as example one in the former scenario.

[i]Actually if you're talking about Spitfire, the Hurricane was a more effective warplane as it could be repaired quickly and simply and put back in the air within hours. [/i]

No, the Spitfire was still more effective, as it was a better warplane that the Hurricane, faster, more manoeuvrable, and had the potential to be further developed. Once fitters had learned the skills required to mend Spitfires, it was no longer any worse in that aspect either. Which is why the Spitfire was being flown by Air forces all over the world well into the jet age when the Hurricane was effectively retired in about 1943.

No design for any item could ever meet all possible criteria so to argue whether one item is a better example of design compared to another would depend on, primarily, whether they were both designed with the same brief in mind.

Agree, just to expand, compare the bic biro to the Parker pen. Both designed to perform the same operation, so it depends on the needs of the end user as to whether it is a Good design or a quality product.

So in answer to the OP...'It depends'! 😀

BT transparent globe distinctive! You are joking I hope. It's everywhere! I suppose if you don't look outside the UK it may appear less generic.

Ford KA was/is a great piece of design, it's a modern Mini or Beetle in the way that neither the new BMW or WV things are, ie. it has its own "personality" and is affordable to both buy and to own.

double post removed...

I wanted a Ka, but my father-in-law was paying, and he hated it. I ended up with an Opel Corsa 🙄

100% agree with you kelvin re. the modern Mini and Beetle, horrible things. The original Audi TT was good, though.

BT logos aside, I'm not arguing for the merits of one design over another. (And I'm not quite sure how people can claim to be passionate about a corporate logo, except maybe [url= http://www.b3ta.com/features/phalliclogoawards/ ]these[/url]) I'm not sure that I'd like a biro more than a Parker, or a La-Z-Boy more than an Eames (and the La-Z-Boy probably costs more).

Just wondering why there is such snobbery regarding "design" when slightly more bulbous, lumpy or undistinguished things do the job just fine and don't affront the eye of your average chap(ette). Not to mention the fact that you can find beauty in something that might be viewed as ugly, industrial or ridiculous by other people.

trangia

The world is full of ugly ill-considered rubbish. The snobbery is just because some people CARE. It's not about elitism either, cheap products need to well designed because they often effect more people's lives. For example, one more ugly Porsche 4x4 effects less people than if Ford's next entry level car turned out to be gopping yet still got bought in high numbers because of economic sense.

Yes, the Spitfire may have been used well into the jet age, but as a warplane the hurricane was better as it was cheaper, easier to repair and shot down many more enemy planes.
[url= http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1941.html ]Contrary to popular belief, it was the Hurricane, not the Spitfire that saved Britain during the dark days of 1940. The turn-around time (re-arm, refuel etc.) for the Spitfire was 26 minutes. That of the Hurricane, only 9 minutes from down to up again. During the Battle of Britain the time spent on the ground was crucial and as one fitter/mechanic of No. 145 Squadron quipped: "If we had nothing but Spits we would have lost the fight in 1940." The Spitfire was an all metal fighter, slightly faster, had a faster rate of climb and had a higher ceiling, while the Hurricane had a fabric covered fuselage, was quicker to repair and withstood more punishment. With the for and against of both fighters they came out about even. The majority of German planes shot down during the four month period were destroyed by Hurricanes. For much of the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires went after the German BF 109s at the higher altitudes, while the Hurricanes attacked the bomber formations flying at lower altitudes. This cost the enemy a total of 551 pilots killed or taken prisoner. During the war a total of 14,231 Hurricanes and 20,334 Spitfires were produced.[/url]

Not to mention the fact that you can find beauty in something that might be viewed as ugly, industrial or ridiculous by other people.

Thats the point, its all subjective. What people perceive to be good design is often what marketing men have 'sold' to them and they 'buy' into it.

If a product performs consistantly to your requirements then it is well designed. Whether other people like it is another matter. Which raises the question, who do you(plural not directly!) buy a product for? Your own use or others approval?

cheap products need to well designed because they often effect more people's lives

I follow you there, but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own? If anything it seems like distinctive looking products are more expensive to buy than ordinary looking products made with the same materials to the same standards. 😐

What bothers me about design is that the big hitters seem to always feel they have to inovate and 'progress'. So lets say for example, something completely random, a messenger bag. The perfect engineer design was hit many many years ago when they were simple, square, flat, had a chest strap to keep them still and worked great. They might not have looked brilliant but they did their job really well and because they were made by the big companies, they generally lasted too. They cost bog all too because lets be honest, you can hardly ask for a lot for something that looks like something your grandad used.

So the big companies all hire shit-hot designers and get themselves a brand new look and because david beckham is seen once with a messenger bag that looks like three hat boxes stuck together and a leather strap, they can sell them for 200 quid a piece, everyone copies them and the only people making bags that actually work for a decent price is some poor arsed uncool company like ron hill who end up having to make them out of degraded flip flops to make a profit because they only sell three a year.

So an excellent design goes out the window all because things have to look good.

That's what bothers me.

That's because you're confusing design and fashion.
Which are very different things.

but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own?

And it was very successful in meeting it's brief IMO.

In fact, the orignal ran a very old and out of date engine/gearbox yet the very contemporary looks meant that the target audience didn't care. In fact, the target audience would probably never care about the mechanics.

It drives/handle swell because, usually, Ford are very good at designing cars that handle well.

[i]That's because you're confusing design and fashion.
Which are very different things. [/i]

Nah, I understand the difference, it's the companies doing that (or admittedly, the fashion concious masses) that have got confused. Otherwise they'd still be selling poor looking products that work well.

I know naff all about cars, but from that description the Ka sounds like your classic case of old wine in new bottles.

It drives/handle swell

The Ka?? We had one as a courtesy car while our Focus was in the garage.

It was ****in awful to drive. I put it on two wheels and almost rolled it going round a bend that I literally had never even thought about in the Focus.

Felt horribly unstable at anything over 50 as well.

Since driving it I've had a new found sympathy for the people that pootle down the dual carriageway at 50mph.

poor looking products that work well

It was ****in awful to drive.

I completlely disagree that it is an awful car to drive. And almost any review of it you will read will concur with my opinion of it.

😛

I like these

[img] [/img]

Hmmm interesting m_f, maybe our courtesy Ka was a bad example or something, but me and the missus both hated it and thought it was a total death trap.

Surely "good design" is something which looks good AND performs well*. Anything else if either good asthetics OR good engineering.
IHMO

(* by which I mean meets specifications)

I follow you there, but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own? If anything it seems like distinctive looking products are more expensive to buy than ordinary looking products made with the same materials to the same standards

Sure, market forces and fashion dictate price to a large extent - hence the fact that given two otherwise identical pieces of clothing one will sell out in a week, and the other will be heavily discounted in the sales, and all because this year red-on-white is fashionable, while white-on-red isn't...

But don't underestimate the cost of design: a Mac will [b]always[/b] cost more than an identically specced grey-box PC, because an important part of Apple's business model is aesthetics. Apple can afford to put out an over-priced / under-specced computer, as long as it looks good. And that requires money: focus groups, design meetings, prototypes, design time...

Ap, it wasn't "better" for all the reasons I've mentioned already. The Hurricane shot down more planes during the Battle of Britain because more squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes, it's as simple as that and most of the aircraft it shot down were slower and less maneuverable than it (Ju87, Bf110, He111, Do17/19 etc etc) The Hurricane was woefully outclassed by later models of the Bf109 and by the Fw190, and by as early as 1942 was withdrawn from fighter duties, and relegated to fighter bomber duties, and even then, replaced pretty quickly by the Typhoon, and Tempest.

For it's time it was pretty good, but it wasn't a better design that the Spitfire, sorry

You think the other companies don't do all that?
I can't see why apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer. They just have a fashionable style. I would love to know their profit margins!

I can't see why apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer

Designers need to be paid, too! While I didn't particuarly like my iPod nano, I freely admit that it was very pretty - brushed alu, those smooth rear and almost sharp front edges... and that costs money.

[i]Sometimes looking great and working great combine[/i]

= good design

[b]Good design is something you want to lick[/b]

[img] [/img]

name it aP, name it...

I can't see why Apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer.

I can. And I'm willing to pay for it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. In't choice a wonderful thing?

[b]Good design is something you want to lick[/b]

[img] ?t=1241136055[/img]

Droool.....

MTT - I'm thinking Mies van der Rohe, probably Berlin, Neue Nationalgalerie?

Now one for you, finished nearly 30 years after his death, and never used for its intended purpose but still an intensely evocative space. They were playing Xenakis when we went...
[img] [/img]

Is that inside a cooling tower or something?

[url= http://www.sitelecorbusier.com/en/ ][b]Gah![/b][/url] Infidel.

Up for riding the Surrey Hills Sunday or Monday?

Oh. 😳

Poss Sunday. Poss.

Good one, Le Corb - Saint-Pierre de Firminy(sp?) Church. Shame they didnt let him put a few more of his plans into action.

[img] [/img]

one for you;

[img] ?v=0[/img]

I feel like putting lots of quotes from Dieter Rams in here.

Instead, I'll just recommend this film: http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/

Oh, and divorcing aesthetics from the idea of "what something is like to use" is a false conceit. How usable we feel a product is does depend on how it looks/sounds/feels to quite a great degree.

As for the Ka: it's drivability and looks are inter-linked. Pushing each wheel out as far into the corners of a small car as possible, like the original mini, effects it's handling A LOT.

See, where Corbusier's designs failed, is that they din't consider real human use. Such brutalist concrete boxes are the scourge of many an inner city. That's the problem with many architects who design large housing buildings; they won't ever have to live there, and have little or no understanding of the needs of those who will.

[img] [/img]

divorcing aesthetics from the idea of "what something is like to use" is a false conceit.

Maybe true for some things. On the other hand there are loads of things out there that are so determined to differentiate themselves aesthetically that it actually makes them harder to use (e.g. James Dyson's Fisher Price vacuum cleaners). There are other things that fulfil their function perfectly and will never make the pages of a Sunday supplement.

Anyone up for starting a glossy magazine for useful items that make you go "meh"? 😉

I can't see why Apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer.

I can. And I'm willing to pay for it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. In't choice a wonderful thing?

Good for you, hope you're happy in your iLife. A couple of decent designers doth not a fortune cost. The products are simple - cuboid with a few fillets. Not expensive to make. The sofware development - maybe. But the materials? No way. Like I said, it's just fashionable.