Comparative Analysis: Good Design. Qualities.

Abstarct

Design is a constantly evolving and reshaping discipline. However, the question of what constitutes good design has always been persistent. As design has expanded into new directions and industries, the answer to this question has started to vary and now includes more conditions. Interaction design, being a relatively new field, has established its own criteria for what is considered good interaction design.

This essay presents a comparative analysis of two perspectives on what constitutes good design. The first text analyzed is the preface and the chapter “What is Design?” from Victor Papanek's book, “Design for the Real World,” published in 1971. In these texts, Papanek explores the concept of good design from both industrial and comprehensive viewpoints within the discipline. The second text is the chapter “What is Interaction Design?” from the book “Designing Interactions” by Bill Moggridge, published in 2006. As a pioneer in the field of interaction design, Moggridge offers a detailed overview of this emerging field and structures the knowledge within it.

The thirty-five-year gap between these publications introduces an interesting dynamic to the analysis: the impact of time on the perception of design and its role. Notably, at the time “Design for the Real World” was published, the field of interaction design existed only in theoretical terms, adding another layer of interest to this analysis.

What is a good design?

In his book, Victor Papanek addresses the purpose and comprehension of the design discipline. He emphasizes the significant responsibility designers hold and advocates for an awareness that designers should actively embrace this responsibility. Papanek contends that design, as the most influential tool, shapes our tools, environment, and society (Papanek, 1971, p.14-15). He wrote this book driven by the desire to underline the high moral and social responsibilities that designers should recognize (Papanek, 1971, p.15-16). Papanek criticizes instances where design is merely used as a marketing tool, arguing instead that design should serve as a "tool responsive to the true needs of humans" (Papanek, 1971, p.15).

Papanek introduces a clear theme through the chapters—the social context of design. He argues that the public should demand that design be responsive and responsible, and not just a means to exploit others' needs for profit, but rather as an opportunity to effect change. An essential action in this regard is initiating an intelligent dialogue between the designer and the consumer.

Papanek also criticizes consumerism, viewing it as a means to obscure rather than resolve issues. He asserts that consumerism pushes design away from its meaningful potential, as he remarks, "the real values of real things have been displaced by the false values of artificial ones" (Papanek, 1971, p.34).

Moggridge addresses the concept of good design from the perspective of interactive systems design. He believes that a key goal for designers in this field is to integrate technology gracefully into our lives, balancing emotive and functional qualities. His book primarily explores the challenges of integrating powerful technology into daily human life without it becoming overbearing. A central goal in this context is designing for a broad spectrum of humanity, considering people and their needs (Moggridge, B., 2006, p.11).

It could be argued that Papanek raises foundational questions about the responsibilities that designers carry and the transformative power of design. Conversely, Moggridge questions design within the realm of technology and interactions with it.

What are the qualities of a good design?

Papanek emphasizes the method of design as a true interaction of tools, processes, and materials under specific conditions. He advocates for the use of materials in an "honest," optimal manner that respects their shape and function. He believes that methods should derive naturally from materials, tools, and processes, and that aesthetics should follow the method.

A functional and meaningful design, according to Papanek, is a creative amalgamation and interaction of tools, materials, and processes, which gives rise to a new method. He delineates the primary functional requirements of the design method through six essential elements: use, need, telesis, association, and aesthetics.

Discussing the use of design, Papanek highlights the unpredictability and foresight of design usage. Taking the automobile as an example, he invites readers to consider its real use over seventy years, noting that increased mobility, which led to the proliferation of suburbs, was not an initial intention but became an inevitable outcome of the automobile's invention (Papanek, 1971, p.31-32).

When discussing need, Papanek points out that recent design has predominantly focused on manipulated "wants" rather than addressing the more complex intellectual needs of human beings (Papanek, 1971, p.32-33).

Another important aspect of design according to Papanek is telesis: each element should exist and function within its own design system. Removing elements from their contextual framework can lead only to chaos. Therefore, elements should be considered and utilized within established design systems and living experiences (Papanek, 1971, p.34-35).

Association, as another aspect of the functional complex, should be carefully considered by designers, as it can drastically alter a customer’s attitude toward a product. Papanek emphasizes how the unconscious relationship between expectation and the configuration of an object can be manipulated (Papanek, 1971, p.36-37).

Aesthetics, being the last element of function, is not defined as clearly by Papanek as the previous elements, but he states that aesthetics is an aspect of function that comes into play when other aspects, like associational and telesic dimensions, are correctly applied (Papanek, 1971, p.38-39).

Many designers attempt to go beyond the primary functional requirements of the method, but often confuse this reduction with simplicity or elegance. However, only a truly thorough approach can result in a design that achieves a "type of enchantment with the near-perfect" (Papanek, 1971, p.39).

Moggridge, in his description of the qualities of interactive systems, shares many similarities with Papanek’s vision.

One of the essential qualities is usability, which reflects the expected quality that users have of a product. This quality slightly intersects with the use described above. However, Papanek views quality more from the perspective of responsibility for potential use cases (Moggridge, B., 2006, p.13).

Utility or usefulness represents a particular use case and a problem a system should be designed for. A system should fit what is needed, and the design behind this system should prioritize this question, before considering how to build it. This quality has similarities with the need mentioned above, but again, there is a lack of ethical questioning of the need from Moggridge’s side to align completely with the first author’s view (Moggridge, B., 2006, p.13).

Another quality by Moggridge is satisfaction. He posits that the significance of owning a product is not a secondary question to its primary function. This quality overlaps both with telesis and association.

The symbolic function or communicativeness is another quality of technologies introduced by Moggridge. The product should be considered not only from its functional point of use but also in terms of what it signifies to us and others. According to Moggridge, interactive systems can convey implicit and explicit meanings to the user. Aesthetics can communicate these implicit meanings and create an additional level of communication beyond the functional one. These qualities resemble association and aesthetics by Papanek. It appears both authors view this quality similarly, with an emphasis that it should not be underestimated by designers. Manipulating this quality can reveal a new level of design-consumer understanding.

One of the most important qualities, according to Moggridge, is sociability. The design of technologies and interactive systems should consider the design of human relationships, otherwise, there is a risk of disrupting the social environment we operate within. Technologies should enhance socializing and open new horizons for it. This is the aspect where the views of both authors most clearly overlap. In my opinion, sociability is the aspect that brings the notion of responsibility to Moggridge’s view on design qualities.

To specify the qualities of good interaction design, Moggridge lists the following aspects of well-designed interactions: a clear mental model of what users interact with; reassuring feedback; navigability; consistency; intuitive interactions; and design in context. Some of these aspects are intrinsic to the interaction design field, but some of them are inherent to a broader definition of the design field.

What do we design?

According to Papanek, intent is an essential characteristic of design. Another must-have quality or characteristic of a design is meaningfulness. In Papanek’s view, design is an integral part of all human activity. In other words, a product or system created with intent and meaning is designed (Papanek, 1971, p.24-25).

Planning and patterning are essential parts of the design process intrinsic to humans. Papanek views the function of design as the mode of action by which design fulfills its purpose. People tend to analyze their environment by imposing order on it, viewing everything from a perspective of order, and extrapolating patterns. However, in an environment, most of the things we admire lack conscious intention and are products of nature’s aspiration for efficiency. In this case, we cannot call these things “design,” as if we do, we “ascribe our own values to an accidental side issue,” like an aesthetically pleasing trout’s body that is “a by-product of swimming efficiency” (Papanek, 1971, p.25-26).

By Moggridge, in the interaction design context, we design how interactive, technology-based systems behave. We design the quality of interactions with them.

It is clear that the two authors view the question from two different points. One is a more general view, and the other is more specific to the interaction design field.

Conclusion

As mentioned above, the thirty-five-year difference in publications does have its impact on the views of the authors. In my opinion, Papanek questions the goal and meaning of good design from a more generalized point of view, whereas Moggridge considers the question of good design specifically from an interaction design standpoint.

The similarities discussed above demonstrate that there are fundamental criteria for good design that do not change with time or the expansion of design into new application fields.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, Papanek’s viewpoint on good design stands out as he encourages society to place greater responsibility on design and designers. In my opinion, this would result in a more meaningful approach to design and increase the role of designers in the decision-making process. It could be said that the social context of design and its consequences are not discussed enough in “What is Interaction Design?” compared to the emphasis on those aspects in “Design for the Real World.”

Sources

1. Papanek, V., 1971, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. Preface, Chapter 1 “What is design?”. Pantheon Books. USA, New York.

2. Moggridge, B., 2006, ed.. Designing Inter- actions. Foreword: What is Interaction Design?. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachuetts. London, England.