Newton’s Laws and their relevance to Design

There is an abundance of literature on design complete with a wide range of perspectives and lists of design principles. While the abundance is great, I’ve often wondered if the endeavor of design can somehow be condensed into a handful of memorable guides.

I was recently reading about Game Physics and asked myself — can Newton’s Laws of motion also provide a foundation for our endeavors to achieve good design?

I look at these laws of motion and try to glean implications for good design.

Design

The first question is — what is design? That is a topic in itself but I use the following as an operational definition for our purposes:

the process of developing purposeful and innovative solutions that embody functional and aesthetic demands based on the needs of the intended user. Design is applied in the development of goods, services, processes, messages and environments- SVID

The above contains the key words we associate with design and also attends to the fact that design is applied in the development of goods and services.

The First Law

An object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net force — Wikipedia

Implications for Design

Newton’s first law is known as the Law of Inertia, where the key term inertia basically equates to resistance to change. Fundamentally, design is about changing the status quo — or at the very least challenging the status quo if not also changing it.

If we apply the metaphors of rest and moving at constant velocity to products, we get two outcomes. At one end we have products that are rest i.e. not being upgraded to cater for changing user needs. These are deservedly headed for obsolescence. At the other end, products that are merely adding features without making a purposeful impact are also not very good design. Good design is more about purposeful solutions than merely ‘ambling along’.

I feel that we can draw a parallel with the First law and agree that design is force that is required to overcome inertia that current and unchallenged ways of working (falsely) lull us into. It is a proactive endeavor to create a better state of being.

Design is deliberate. It does not automatically happen. It needs to be done.

The Second Law

the sum of the forces on an object is equal to the mass of that object multiplied by the acceleration of the object— Wikipedia

Implications for Design

There is no direct implication of this law for design that is screaming at us. However, when we look deeper, the beauty of second law is that it can be expressed in a famous and elegant equation: F = ma.

I’ve often wondered if Design can be expressed as a formula? This is in equal parts impossible and also very complex, if possible at all. However, if we make a (very) humble attempt at it perhaps we can define a equation that succinctly captures the impact (force) of design endeavors?

If we treat design as a force, then its two drivers can arguably be Form and Function or aesthetic and functional demands from our definition above.

So perhaps we have a formula for design inspired by the Second Law:

Design = Form x Function

We can put it to test. Say we have 10 points maximum for each, then the ideal object which has good functionality complemented by good aesthetics will score 100. If either is not as good as the other, then the rating falls, as we would expect to be the difference between well designed and poorly designed products, and services even.

In the wider sense, parallel with the Second Law is more than just about defining an elegant formula. It is about understanding the drivers of design. What drives our design endeavor? This ultimately leads us into strategy questions like where do we want to play, what is our winning ambition and concepts of value proposition, that help us refine our design.

The Third Law

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body— Wikipedia

Implications for Design

The third law is perhaps the most well know of all. In lay terms it means that each action has an equal and opposite reaction. It may be simple to interpret but is slightly more difficult to truly comprehend. As Newton's comment on this law states:

Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.

Equal and opposite reaction are easy terms to understand but when we actually visualize that the pencil/pen/object we are holding forcefully with our fingers is also exerting an equal force on our fingers, a deeper realization dawns upon us.

The implications of the Third Law for design are also at two levels. The first one is simple. Design will elicit feedback. In a superficial sense, this law applies to feedback loops that helps us iterate design.

In a deeper sense, it applies to behavioral change that design leads to. As I wrote in my earlier post design solves problems for people. but equally, design also influences our interactions, actions and capabilities. Take Microsoft Excel. It is a spreadsheet but people have used it for all sorts of things including Gantt charts, data cleansing and even games! Ironically, one of its prevalent use today is to create nicely formatted tables — very much the territory of its illustrious cousin — Word. Similar example is of say Gmail. If we use Gmail. we adapt our use according the features that Gmail presents us. The current interface (i.e. our preferred design option) influences current usage and also becomes a guide for future usage. Say we were used to folders and are now used to labels. then in our next email programme, labels is the normal expectation for us. The design of products, especially ubiquitous ones, influences our notion of ‘normal’ design and in turn our capabilities and expectations.

People don’t always use products in their desired manner. They often use it creatively for other things. So if ineffective behaviors (arising from unmet needs) inspire design, design also in turn impacts behaviors as people structure their working habits (behaviors) according to the tools on hand.