Beyond minimalism: Why we’ve misinterpreted Dieter Rams’ design principles in modern UX
At 92, Dieter Rams remains one of the most influential designers of our time. Yet as his principles have spread through the design world, particularly in UX design, we’ve witnessed a curious phenomenon. The very principles he developed to fight against fashion driven design have themselves become fashion statements.
The Minimalism Trap: When Less Becomes a Fashion Statement
“I hate everything that is driven by fashion,” Dieter Rams once said. Yet ironically, his principle of “Good design is as little design as possible” has itself become a fashion trend in UX design. The minimalist interface has become the equivalent of the black dress in the fashion world. Everyone feels they need one, often without understanding why.
This fashion driven minimalism manifests in what can be called “aesthetic minimalism.” A surface-level pursuit of visual simplicity that often compromises core functionality. Just as fashion trends can lead to impractical clothing choices, this trendy minimalism often results in impractical user experiences.
Consider Apple’s removal of the headphone jack. While this decision aligned with the fashionable “less is more” aesthetic, it created new complications for users who now needed adapters or wireless headphones. This isn’t what Rams meant by “as little design as possible.” His vision was about removing unnecessary complexity while preserving essential functionality. Not following a minimalist trend.
The core problem here isn’t minimalism itself, but rather its transformation into a fashion statement rather than a functional choice. When designers strip away elements simply because “clean design is in,” they’re doing exactly what Rams cautioned against . Following fashion rather than solving problems.
A more nuanced example is Instagram’s evolution. Early versions of Instagram had clearly visible navigation elements. The current version hides many features behind gesture controls and ambiguous icons. While this creates a trendy, clean interface that looks great in design portfolios, it also increases the cognitive load on users who must now remember hidden interactions. The pursuit of fashionable minimalism has inadvertently created functional complexity.
The Honesty Paradox: Truth in Digital Abstractions
“Good design is honest” takes on a complex meaning in digital interfaces. In physical products, Rams’ principle advocated for truthful representation of materials and functions. But digital products exist in a realm of metaphor and abstraction.
Take the “save” icon. A floppy disk that many users have never physically encountered. Is this honest design? By Rams’ strict definition, no. But it serves a crucial function in creating shared understanding through metaphor. The same goes for skeuomorphic elements in digital interfaces. They’re not literally honest, but they create honest understanding.
Modern banking apps provide another interesting case study. They often use simplified visualizations of complex financial processes. When you “transfer money,” you’re not physically moving anything. You are initiating a complex series of database updates. The interface presents a simplified metaphor of this process. This isn’t strictly honest, but it’s functionally truthful.
The Environmental Responsibility Revolution
Rams’ principle of environmental friendliness needs a complete reimagining for digital products. While he focused on physical waste and sustainable materials, digital sustainability encompasses different dimensions:
Consider a streaming service like Netflix. Its environmental impact isn’t in physical materials but in server farms, energy consumption, and network infrastructure. Good digital design must consider computational efficiency and data center impact. A beautifully designed video player that streams in unnecessary high resolution on mobile networks isn’t environmentally friendly design.
The same applies to “digital waste.” Unused features, bloated code, and unnecessary animations all consume resources. Environmental responsibility in UX design means creating efficient, performant experiences that minimize computational overhead while maximizing user value.
Innovation vs. Iteration: The Evolution Equation
The principle “Good design is innovative” often leads designers to chase novelty at the expense of usability. Consider the case of Snapchat’s interface. While innovative, its unique interaction patterns initially confused many users. Innovation in UX doesn’t necessarily mean reinventing interaction patterns. It can mean finding better ways to implement familiar patterns.
Look at how Google’s Material Design evolved. Rather than completely reinventing interface elements, it innovated in how these elements worked together as a system. The innovation wasn’t in creating new components but in creating a more coherent, scalable design language.
The Systems Thinking Revolution: Rams’ Hidden Principle
What’s often overlooked is Rams’ systematic approach to design. He didn’t just design products; he designed ecosystems of products that worked together coherently. This is perhaps his most relevant principle for modern UX design.
Consider how Figma revolutionized design tools not by reimagining individual features, but by reimagining the entire system of how designers work together. They understood that the core user experience wasn’t about better drawing tools . It was about better collaboration.
A Modern Interpretation for Digital Product Design
Rather than treating Rams’ principles as commandments, we should view them as thinking tools that help us create better digital experiences. Good UX design isn’t about minimalism for its own sake. It’s about creating experiences that serve user needs effectively and efficiently.
The next time you’re tempted to hide a crucial feature in the name of minimalism, or add a novel interaction pattern in the name of innovation, remember : The core user experience isn’t about features or aesthetic minimalism. It’s about solving real user problems in the most effective way possible. That’s what Rams was really talking about.
The true legacy of Dieter Rams isn’t in his specific principles, but in his systematic approach to solving user problems. As we design digital products, we should focus less on surface-level interpretations of his principles and more on his fundamental approach: understanding user needs deeply and solving them elegantly.
This deeper understanding of Rams’ principles leads us back to the essence of good UX design: creating products that serve real user needs effectively, sustainably, and systematically. And sometimes, that might mean adding complexity when it serves the user’s needs. Because good design isn’t about being minimal, it’s about being right for the user.
