Thought experiment: Is focusing on functionality a stupid idea?
There is a heavy focus on the word “functionality” when it comes to product design, I would almost consider it one of the primary buzzwords in the tech space at the moment.
And rightly so; functionality is the backbone to product success. Without functionality, you have nothing…
However, as a designer, I’ve frequently found myself engaging in projects where the single primary objective is to make a product — “functional”.
I’ve even been in situations where clients have been won off the back of a pitch which has been directly focused on the word: “functional”.
- “Your MVP needs to be functional.”
- “Yes that looks great, but is it functional?”
- “We’re not interested in the pretty designs, is it functional?”
Then we’d go away and build something which is — “functional”.
The personal problem I have always had with this approach, was limiting myself to just; functionality. I’m one of those creative designers who always gets carried away with going that extra mile to make something look beautiful, as well as functional.
So when teams shipped products that looked awful, although were being written off as “functionally correct”, I would always die inside a little bit, as it was totally against my nature.
Sometimes, in particular instances, I’d even find myself putting beauty in front of functionality (and every product designer knows, this will make a team of engineers go mental).
However, when we look at the history of functionality within the context of design; is it really a good idea to focus all of your effort, on the simplistic aspect of ‘function’?
Let me explain
Ultimately, we need to understand why functionality became the focus of design. For that, we need to take a step backwards and understand its origins. Please bare with me on this one, at first this might sound like a history lesson, but I promise I will get to the point…
Essentially, the culture of focusing on “functional” design came into play towards the end of the 19th century. People tend to forget that this concept of ‘functionality’, derived from a German and Austrian ideology which was born off the back of Modernism.
To give this a bit of context: If you were to have grown up in the Classicism era (19th century) which was a time before Modernism, you would find that ‘design’ (across the board) was commonly inspired by historical influences.
This was a time where designers were still creating things in cultural contexts. People set standards for taste which the classicists sought to emulate, instead of creating new styles.
Basically: before Modernism, people just stole styles from the past opposed to creating new ones.
There are quite literally millions of examples of this. A significant one would be Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The gate’s design is based upon the Propylaea, the gateway to the Acropolis in Athens, Greece, and is consistent with Berlin’s history of architectural classicism. The style and design of it was nothing new, simply a reincarnation of another style from another era.
Quite frankly, this kind of thing in architecture happened absolutely everywhere. In-fact, If you live in a city which predates the 19th century, it’s very likely you could look out your window right now, and find multiple examples.
Whilst the era of classism was knocking about in the 19th century, a guy called Adolf Loos objectively looked at the way design was being implemented across the board, and controversially said:
“This is bullsh*t, lets build our own things”
(Ok, he didn’t really say those words, but I encourage you to read his essays and you’ll get the idea)
Adolf Loos lead to the elimination of ornament from useful objects, and this translated over the Bauhaus movement.
The Bauhaus movement, because it fitted so well with economic times, translated into some sort of economic functionalism (opposed to it’s original purpose of existence) which was seen to be all about making everything as tight and as functional as possible.
At the very height of this movement, the Soviet Union took inspiration from Bauhaus, understood the economic value of focusing on functionality and then started to focus on strictly “functionality” in their design process.
To ameliorate a severe housing shortage, during 1947–1951 Soviet architects evaluated various technologies attempting to reduce costs and completion time. During January 1950 an architects’ convention, declared low-cost, quick technologies the objective of Soviet architects. — (reference)
Within a very short time frame, the Soviet architects mass produced 250 million functional housing blocks, referred to as Khrushchyovka.
Khrushchyovka buildings were the pure result of Soviet architects focusing on ‘functional design’.
These housing blocks were exported to all over the Soviet Unions’ Eastern Bloc and South America with about four people living in each apartment. Thus totalling 1bn people living in these complete sh*t holes…
These buildings were specifically ‘designed’ to do one thing extremely well, which was: “function”.
Albeit, ironically, they did one thing not very well, which was: “function”.
Ultimately, nobody wanted to live in these building blocks. They were not fit for human endeavours.
Let’s be honest, you don’t hear many people say:
“I’m not particularly keen on those Georgian 5 bed detached manors with 15 acres of well kept garden. I’d prefer one of those Khrushchyovka apartment blocks…”
This leads me onto tech scene…
Frankly, the tech which is being built today, which is only focusing “functionality” is the equivalent to the Soviet Union building factories. - It’s not personal or ‘habitable’ because it neglects a vital human instinct, of beauty.
When we look at design, it’s easy to dismiss a lot of it as “unnecessary pretty stuff” however, when we start looking back as far as thousands of years ago, when design was so much more intimate, us humans had always taken the time and effort to make things look beautiful as well as functional.
The stone axe, for example, which is over 1 million years old — Almost every single one of them were symmetrical.
They didn’t need to be symmetrical for humans to skin Mammoths or chop down a tree. The symmetrical element had nothing to do with function; they were simply designed this way because they looked nicer.
The point I’m trying to make is, the vast majority of us are still using exactly the same ideology as the soviet building factories. If we simply focus our efforts on ‘just making it work’; are we neglecting a very important human instinct, of beauty?
Would love to hear your thoughts!
