Does Form Follow Function?

It was originally said in my critical essay on design principles that form and function should be considered together at the design stage and I still agree with this. When looking into the world of design there is mixed views as to whether form should follow function, but just like with ockhams razor there should be a balance. Achieving the correct balance depends on the type of market you are aiming at. For instance if your designing for the military function will be the main focus in the design, as the equipment has to meet high standards of reliability and undergo extreme abuse.

In the civilian markets form and function need to considered equally when in the designing stage, this I feel is key to a products success. To prove my point look at the following images and decide, which would you prefer to buy?

These two 4x4 Mercedes both have the same functions but the M-class (left) has been designed with form being taken into consideration more than it has been when designing the G-class (right). An example of the opposite where form is considered after the function can been seen in motor racing.

These pictures show two high powered cars with one design focusing on function. In the world of F1 and motor racing the main focus is on the performance of the car with each team needing the best functioning parts. The form of the car in this case is not considered till after function, because if considered first the performance could be compromised.

Design therefore does not have to be dictated by form following function in every design scenario, but it depends on the product as to what ratio you use of each. This is why when I read a design brief I now make the decision on whether to put form before or after function. In most cases the more complex the products workings are, the more the form follows function. To conclude the following show examples of work and the decisions I made.

This project was aimed at providing a new ornament for Crofts and Assinder to add to there garden range, for this brief I decided to focus on its form as the product was ornamental/decorative.

This brief required a new design for a humane mammal trapping device, so the main focus I decide was on function as it was more important in this case.

Mimicry

This principle refers to the use of properties from organisms, objects and environments to shape a products design, improving its function. Mimicry is very popular in designers as it solves important issues in the advance of technology, especially biomimicry, which analyses organisms with the designer reverse engineering certain aspects of their evolved form. One example would be the use of research into bird flight being used to help make the design of the aeroplane successful in flight.

There is three types of mimicry that any designer including myself can use to help in a products design and these are:

• Surface mimicry - Making a design look like something else.


• Behavioural mimicry - Creating a design that acts like something else.


• Functional mimicry - development of a design to work like something else.

Use of the three types of mimicry in design provides very positive results but in different ways, examples of these follow. The first example shown is the Black & Decker Snakelight which is designed to provide lighting at awkward angles and is typically used in D.I.Y or whilst working on cars.

As can be seen on the picture the torch functionally mimics the snakes ability to coil round and grip objects, having a flexible vertebrae structure covered by rubber membrane to give the desired result. The second example provides a link a video that shows an example of biomimicry in robotics, using the Robosapien robot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqDsV1mdO1c

This video shows a perfect example of behavioural mimicry with the robot reacting to its surrounding and also showing a form of basic human personality. However though this form of mimicry provides likeability to a product I feel there is no positive benefits to copying the behaviour of other creatures within my designs.

Moving on to the final example showing surface mimicry, the image shows a set of icons every computer user is familiar with.

Each icon is designed to mimic the image of a familiar object, using this to indicate the icons function or use. These simple images allow the desktop and other files to catalogue a PC's icons in a space efficient manner. For more information on products which use mimicry to improve the design, follow he links below.

Catseyes:

http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/cat_eyes.htm

Velcro:

http://www.velcro.com/index.php?page=who-is-velcro-r

Self Cleaning Paint:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/sto_lotusan_bio.php

Following the search into use of mimicry in products and the evidence above, I still believe that using this principle to design can be very productive and successful. However I feel my personal designs will be influenced more from using functional and surface mimicry, rather than behavioural mimicry. This is down to feelings that behavioural mimicry has to many complex issues in the future regarding morals.

Okhams Razor - Is a simple design better than a complex one?

This principle asserts that a simple design should be chosen over a more complex design, as any unnecessary physical or visual weight can affect the designs efficiency. The critical essay that was done prior to this originally stated that I fully agreed with the principle, saying that designs can be too complicated which can put of users. After a few months however my opinion on this principle has changed.

I now feel that some complex designs should not be classed as being inefficient due to they're extra weight or applications/accessories, as sometimes they need this extra design to improve the usability of the product. It can also be said that some simple design can look too basic which can put off a user from buying the product, this is because certain buyer groups (particularly the older generation) have been programmed to think "more mean better value". The following photo's show one comparison I found proving simplicity isn't always the better way to design:

The two designs are both used for opening wine bottles, however the one on the right which would be classified as the more complex actually works better. This is because the twin arm corkscrew allows the user to control the pulling force on the cork through the mechanical force of the gears. The simpler T-bar corkscrew applies the opening force suddenly, which could possibly cause spillage of the contents.

Information from the above paragraph and image should by no means give a designer/user the impression that complex designs are always more efficient, it is there to show how I have got to my conclusion on the subject. Some designers follow the Ockhams Razor principle resulting in successful simple products that would be less efficient in there more complex form. The evolution of technology is the best example of this with companies such as Apple, Nokia, Sony, etc capitalising on the simplicity, as this type of design works better in the market. Following the first set of links below shows a set of simple products, the second set show older versions of the product to compare the design:

New

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_classic?mco=MTE2NTc
http://www.nokia.co.uk/link?cid=PLAIN_TEXT_1204523#/main/landing
http://www.sony.co.uk/lang/en/product/dsc-t-series/dsc-t900

Old

http://blogs.msdn.com/frankfi/archive/2007/11/19/forget-all-your-mp3-players.aspx
http://www.maurograziani.org/wordpress/wp-content/motorola.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympus_XA_camera_and_film.jpg

Comparing the old to the new products shows that the new simpler designs are more appealing and more efficient to use. Apples IPod has the simplest design around with just a screen and circular touch sensitive navigation and this product has made the company millions and started off a new trend in customer loyalty through itunes.

In looking further into different products and they're variations my original opinion has changed from "designers should follow Ockhams razor principle", to that of "the success of a design relates to a balance between function and simplicity". I will therefore only let myself be influenced by this rule as long as simplicity does not compromise the way the product works.

Introduction

Welcome!

This blog has been started to allow myself, a designer, to elaborate on the principles of design that I take an interest in. Within this blog you as a reader will be able to experience my views/opinions on certain aspects of design and also leave comments. The blog also describes reflections from a critical essay that was previously wrote, explaining how my views on the principles have changed and how I have researched/explored each of them. For those interested the following principles debated can be found in the book 'Universal Principles of Design' by W.Lidwell, K.Holden and J.Butler.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1592530079/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page