Digital Design Philosophy

I think it’s good to articulate my design principles from time to time. I work as a designer and in my work I have certain values. Design is making lots of decisions, saying no to thousands of things for one yes. In these decisions, I am driven by principles, values. It’s not like I come up with these principles first and then start designing. These principles are born in the work. They arise out of the decisions that I make. Looking back at the decisions I make and the thoughts that go through my head, I can deduct these principles, my design philosophy. I write this philosophy down from time to time to make myself more aware. I hope it also helps others to think about their own design philosophy.

“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things.” — Steve Jobs

This iteration of my design philosophy is inspired by the product design philosophy of Patagonia as formulated by Yvon Chouinard in his book let my people go surfing. In this book, he formulated a couple of interesting design principles. These are in turn based on industrial design principles as formulated by designers like Dieter Rams and Buckminster Fuller. The product design philosophy of Patagonia is made up of the following principles (this is my own selection), that also apply to the digital design craft that I am working in:

1. Function and form

Patagonia design principle 1 / Is it functional?
Patagonia applies industrial design principles to clothing design. The first principle of industrial design is that the function of an object should determine its design. 

How does this apply to digital design?

In my experience, the roots of digital design lie closer to graphical design than industrial design. In my view, in general, graphical design has a somewhat looser connection to functionalism than industrial design. Maybe that also has something to do with the people practicing the two disciplines. Industrial design is closer related to engineering. Graphical design is closer related to art. That attracts different people with different mindsets. Digital design’s other parent is software engineering. And although software engineers are very functional, and that there is a long history in design of human-computer interfaces, the field did not excel in creating user-friendly user interfaces in its existence up until recently. The need for intuitive interfaces is a relatively recent development in the history of software engineering. Functionalism has to do with both the form and how things work. Design should be about how things work, not how they look. But the reality of design is that the visual realm is a space where functional solutions can be found. Good designers seek out the interaction between functions and forms to find solutions that work. Both realms inspire solutions.

Because finding nice forms is much easier than finding forms that work, and because a lot of digital designers are in a graphical design / artistic mindset, there is a tendency of digital designers to focus too much on aesthetics. It’s also much easier to like pixel perfect flashy interfaces than to like well thought-through interfaces that solve actual business problems. So both internal preferences and external stimuli push digital designers more towards form that is not based on function than to forms that are dictated by function.

“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, “Make it look good!” That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” — Steve Jobs

So I think it’s important that the first principle of industrial design is also the first principle of digital design. Digital design is becoming increasingly important for businesses. Digital design is becoming more and more strategic. But if digital design is not based on function and gets lost too much in aesthetics, digital design will not be able to deliver the business value it can. In these times of increased importance of digital design, focussing on function is quintessential. If business people continue to believe that digital design is about pretty pictures, digital design will never get the mandate it needs to impact business on a fundamental level.

That does not mean digital design should not be beautiful. We’ll get to that in principle 9 :-)

Takeaway: digital design needs to follow the first principle of industrial design: form follows function.

2. One tool, multiple functions

Patagonia design principle 2 / Is it multifunctional?
To carry as little as possible in the mountains is a spiritual tenet of many outdoor enthousiasts, as well as a practical consideration. To travel as light as possible, Patagonia always strives to create products that have multiple functions.

How does this apply to digital design?

There are a couple of interesting angles that come up when I read this design principle from Patagonia.

In digital design, I could think about making digital tools that also serve multiple purposes. Sometimes this is a good idea, sometimes not. Big software suites like those of Microsoft, Adobe and Google are useful because they offer a lot of functionality and and connect all those functions. In the past, it also usually means that the separate apps are not the best of breed. This is changing as big suites are buying best of breed apps or copying them. But if you are not Google or Microsoft, the best idea is usually to build the best tool for a specific niche, for one specific purpose. Software users don’t have to travel light and they can have a lot of apps installed on their systems. Especially with cloud based apps, there is not limit to the apps a user uses. So the concept of traveling light does not apply to digital tools.

Or does it? The journey of a user that uses a lot of apps, that has a lot of touch points on a day-to-day basis, creates a lot of cognitive load. The user has to learn how to use all the tools, has to remember what each tool does and how they can be stiched together to get the job done. All the tools also have a lot of options that can overwhelm. The work usually doesn’t improve from using more tools. There is a nice quote in the Patagonia book about fishing:

“The experienced fisherman with only one rod, one type of fly, and one type of line will always outfish the duffer with an entire quiver of gear and flies.”

As a designer, I always very critical of the tools I use and how they impact the design process and outcome. Each tool has a bias, a mental model. That impacts your design. I quit like the idea of using as few tools as possible when you are designing. Recently, I have re-discovered Adobe XD to design user experiences. I like the idea of trying to use just one tool for everything. I used to work at an architects office that used only Vectorworks. They used it to design buildings but they also typed their letters in it and used it to design posters for exhibitions. At the time it felt silly but now it starts to make sense. In Adobe XD you can also make PDF’s so I could use it to make presentation instead of using MS Powerpoint. I can use it to create text documents. I can use it to create vector drawings. Let’s see how far I can get with only one tool.

Takeaway: using less tools is the path to mastery.

Patagonia design principle 3: Is it durable?
Buying cheap goods is not only not good for the environment, it is also more expensive. Products that last a lifetime are usually more expensive to buy, but will cost you less over a lifetime. They will also give you more pleasure and joy because of their built quality and materials.

How does this apply to digital design?

Is there something like digital durability? Are there digital tools that last a lifetime? Last year, I came off a one and a half year digital detox in which I did not use a smartphone. When I switched back (read here why I switched back), I wanted to use my old iPhone 4. This is a classic design that still stands the test of time. It doesn’t look outdated. It’s a classic design. The iOS version is limited and cannot be updated but the interface looks okay today. Not only the industrial design is classic, also the interface is classic design. It’s about 8 years old I think and that is a long time in the digital world. But it doesn’t work anymore. I can start it up and run all the apps that are one it. At least, the native apps. It cannot run any of the apps I use like Whatsapp, Instagram, Medium, Google Maps etc. Why? Because the iOS cannot update anymore and all apps require a recent version of the iOS. I would be happy to use a light version of the apps on my iPhone 4. But the industry decided otherwise. It’s a perfectly functioning phone with a classic design. I had the battery replaced so it is as good as new. It’s much more sustainable than buying a new phone. The most environmentally friendly phone there is is the one you already own. But I cannot use it anymore.

Durability is built into the Internet. That is one of the things I find super cool. The first website ever built can still be used like it was just uploaded yesterday. HTML is perfectly backwards compatible. Not only is the first website ever still usable, it is also usable on mobile devices that did not even exist when it was built. HTML is responsive by design. The whole idea of the hyperlink still works today like it did in 1991. All the layers you put on top of plain HTML make it less durable. Because of all the easy frameworks we have today and the click and drag design tools, designers and developers tend to create too complex digital products. Complexity works against durability. The more moving parts, the higher the chances it will break down or will be incompatible in time. All the seamless transitions, animated infographics, WebGL 3D content, javascript libraries create cool looking veneer for your Dribbble portfolio but also make your designs less durable. This has to do with two other Patagonia design principles:

Patagonia design principle 3: Is it as simple as possible?
At Patagonia, they follow the principle of Dieter Rams: “Good design is as little design as possible.” Not because as little design as possible, minimalism, is better per definition but because complexity is often a sign that the functional needs have not been solved.

Simplicity is not only good for the users of digital products, it’s also good for the durability. Simplicity is a sign of good design and an indicator of durability. One can ask the question if all the fancy veneer that is added to a lot of digital products actually solves a functional need. There can be perfectly good reasons for seamless transitions and fancy exquisitely timed animations. But more often than not it’s just because it looks cool. That brings us to the next principle:

Patagonia design principle 4: Does it chase fashion?
When you give in to fashion trends, you condemn your clothes to the trash heap. 

The same goed for digital products. If you follow the latest trends in digital design, you know one thing for sure and that is that next year, your designs will look terribly outdated. Fashion is more expensive. Because you know it will not last. Classic design might look more expensive at first, but is actually cheaper and more durable.

Takeaway: simplicity and classic digital design is more durable.

3. Usability

Patagonia design principle 5: Is it repairable?
No matter how durable Patagonia makes its clothes, there will always be a need to repair. In order for user not to throw it away when some part is broken, Patagonia designs its products to be easy to repair. They are designed to be fixed.

How does this apply to digital design?

Every thing break. Even digital products. Can you design digital products to be fixed? When we talk about websites that users can maintain themselves, one thing that comes to mind is limiting the chances that users can break things while managing the content on a website. If users put in content that doesn’t fit, the design will break. If users have to many degreed of freedom, too many options, they will break the design. A platform like Medium doesn’t have a lot of options for users, so it’s not easy to break the design.

Fixing things after they break requires some knowledge. Patagonia offers repair service and repair manuals. Both strategies are also used in digital design. Manuals can teach users what to do and what not to do. Developers and designers can fix broken designs if you call them.

I think the key to repairability lies in entanglement. If the parts of a piece of clothing are connected in a way that makes it hard to replace parts, it becomes harder to repair. The whole Fairphone initiative is an exercise in disentanglement. If things are modular, they can be easily repaired. Applications can also be designed modular so they can be built modular and thus more easily repaired. Modern applications like Spotify are built up out of small parts, microservices, that can be redesigned, reprogrammed and repaired individually without disrupting the whole. Seeing the parts, designing in parts makes products more easy to repair.

Takeaway: modular design is easier to repair.

This is also loosely tied to another design principle:

Patagonia design principle 6: Is it easy to care for and clean?
At Patagonia they think about making clothes that don't require ironing, can be washed at low temperatures and dry easily because the use of their products should be as less hassle as possible. 

In digital products, there is not just one user. Most designers pay attention to the end-user that uses the applications. But the internal users at the organization that has to run and maintain the product or service are often overlooked. The user experience for employees, the employee experience is as important for the success of a service as the user experience of end-users. The employees are the ones who have to care for and clean the application. The back-end also needs design.

Takeaway: the employee experience deserves more attention.

4. User centered design

Patagonia design principle 7: Does it fit our customer?
Clothes have to fit but not all bodies are the same. To accommodate different body types is quite a challenge. And it's not just body types, it's also preferences in loose or tight fit for different people and different activities.

User centered design is a common principle in digital design. There are a lot of things to take into consideration. There is not one user. And there is not one context. Devices, circumstances, digital literacy levels and mental models can be quite different from user to user. Simplification of users into personas or limiting user testing to 5 users can lead to a limited view of the users and their contexts and a misfit of the product or service to actual user needs. Good user research can limit the risk of misfit.

But that is not the largest blind spot when it comes to digital designers. The most difficult user which needs need to be fulfilled for designers is often the business. Researching and interviewing end users to find out their hidden needs is a challenge in itself. But maybe even more challenging is finding out the way in which the application can create business value. We also find this in the design principles of Patagonia:

Patagonia design principle 8: Does it have added value?
A lot of money people spend is on things that are not really necessary. Only about 10% of the money people spend is on goods and services that are necessary for survival. The majority of stuff is vanity, useless stuff. Patagonia wants to design goods that add value to people's lives

For digital design this means that by solving end-user’s problems, you solve the problems of the business. But there are many problems users have and there are many ways in which these problems can be solved. The precise problem for end-users that is solved and the precise way this is done has to align with the business that offers the product or service. To create the maximum amount of value with a digital product or service requires insight in the the business that offers the service: the organization, the infrastructure, the business model, the resources.

Is design essential?

Sometimes, I like this adding of value one step further. If we add value to the user and to the business, do we also add value to the world? Are we actually making the lives of our users better? Dieter Rams says it like this: “Design only works when it really seeks to achieve something for humanity.”. Is design really an essential service to humanity or is it just vanity? I believe good design is essential to humanity. The progress humanity made is largely driven by design. The design of the arrow head, of the knife, of the car, the Internet, everything around us is designed. So design is essential but it can also be vanity.

Takeaway: design with impact is design that is aligned to the needs of the user, the architecture of the business and the betterment of humanity.

5. Beauty

Patagonia design principle 9: Is it beautiful?
Beauty is not the goal but the result for Patagonia. At Patagonia, they start designing with the first rule of industrial design: form follows function. But they believe that if the result is not beautiful, the solution is wrong.

This principle is beautifully expressed in this quote by Buckminster Fuller:

“When I’m working on a problem, I never think about beauty. In think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.” — Buckminster Fuller

This creates a great circle back to the first principle of form follows function. If form follows function in a way that solves the problem in the right way, the form is beautiful. This is a law of nature. Every solution in nature is beautiful. So man-made solutions should also be beautiful to be good. Beauty is related to good. This is also a trap. Because beauty is tied to good, if something looks beautiful, you can be fooled into thinking it is good. All that is good is beautiful. But not all that is beautiful is good. You can fake beauty. You can make beautiful designs that are not good solutions. Dribbble is filled with it. If you start with beauty, you will not necessarily get to good. In fact, beauty can be so seductive that you lose sight of good. Beauty can blind you from seeing the faults in the solution. That is why good design never starts with beauty. beauty must be the result not the goal.

Takeaway: beauty should be the result not the goal.

There are more principles in the book that I did not mention. These are the ones that inspired me to rethink my digital design philosophy. One thing that stuck out for me in the Patagonia book is that the people that founded and run Patagonia are people that are close to nature. They enjoy outdoor activities like climbing and surfing. They seek out contact with nature, learn from it and respect it. This makes it easier to have a durable, functional design philosophy. The principles are the result of a deep connection with nature and do not stand on their own. Simply adopting a set of principles is not durable. Design principles are built on top of values and beliefs. Design principles are the result of the way you live. The way you live and the way you design are not two separate things. They are one.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, don’t forget to hit the clap button so I know I connected with you. I will dive deeper into the topics of Design Leadership in upcoming articles. If you follow me here on Medium, you will see them pop up on your Medium homepage. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn to see new articles in your timeline or talk to my bot at dennishambeukers.com :) You can also find me on Instagram.