Thanks for this newsletter, always a pleasure to read. I've recently created an updated laser cut version of an old tradition of wonderboxes, or what you may know as the old peep show apparatus. Comparing the new laser cut version with the old hand-crafted version was a HUGE wake up call to the importance of the emotional aspect of design. Of course I knew that my version would look and feel different, but the magnitude of difference when comparing them side by side was much starker than what I had expected. Your article is helpful as I ponder what to do about it, and if I even need to do anything about it or just accept it and run with it as it is.
Sounds like a fun project. Did a lot of laser cutting in my architectural student days and remember the challenge of making all the burnt edges look “right”. Back then people would spray paint elements or stain the wood darker so the contrast wasn’t as stark. I think leaning into the strengths of the material (precision, intricacy etc) and allowing it to become something slightly different to the original might be the way to go.
Isn’t the term ‘form follows function’? So the two are not opposed. In fact that was a pronouncement that came as a reaction to a previous taste in design. The only thing of value here is that people also have an emotional connection to their tools and the physical environment in general, and designers should reflect this reality in their work.
That was Louis Sullivan’s maxim I believe yes, though I think when you look at the original quote you can find all sorts of problems with how he justifies this “law”. And the way I read it, the verb follows implies subordination so there is a tension there between the two. Whether you want to frame that as “form vs function” or firmitas/utilitas/venustas etc etc the question of how to bring together these values in a design is long-running and “form follows function” is one perspective of many about the right way to do this.
What I detected at this design conference last month was a feeling that this tension had got out of balance in the functional direction, at least in the world of software design. And maybe it seems obvious that designers should take into account emotional relationships in their work but I have worked in teams and with clients where there was little agreement on this point, stemming in part from a disinterest or impatience with anything that couldn’t be articulated in the strictest of functional terms.
the do-nothing machine is so fun!
Thanks for this newsletter, always a pleasure to read. I've recently created an updated laser cut version of an old tradition of wonderboxes, or what you may know as the old peep show apparatus. Comparing the new laser cut version with the old hand-crafted version was a HUGE wake up call to the importance of the emotional aspect of design. Of course I knew that my version would look and feel different, but the magnitude of difference when comparing them side by side was much starker than what I had expected. Your article is helpful as I ponder what to do about it, and if I even need to do anything about it or just accept it and run with it as it is.
Sounds like a fun project. Did a lot of laser cutting in my architectural student days and remember the challenge of making all the burnt edges look “right”. Back then people would spray paint elements or stain the wood darker so the contrast wasn’t as stark. I think leaning into the strengths of the material (precision, intricacy etc) and allowing it to become something slightly different to the original might be the way to go.
Isn’t the term ‘form follows function’? So the two are not opposed. In fact that was a pronouncement that came as a reaction to a previous taste in design. The only thing of value here is that people also have an emotional connection to their tools and the physical environment in general, and designers should reflect this reality in their work.
That was Louis Sullivan’s maxim I believe yes, though I think when you look at the original quote you can find all sorts of problems with how he justifies this “law”. And the way I read it, the verb follows implies subordination so there is a tension there between the two. Whether you want to frame that as “form vs function” or firmitas/utilitas/venustas etc etc the question of how to bring together these values in a design is long-running and “form follows function” is one perspective of many about the right way to do this.
What I detected at this design conference last month was a feeling that this tension had got out of balance in the functional direction, at least in the world of software design. And maybe it seems obvious that designers should take into account emotional relationships in their work but I have worked in teams and with clients where there was little agreement on this point, stemming in part from a disinterest or impatience with anything that couldn’t be articulated in the strictest of functional terms.