> they're overly focussed on superficial form at the expense of deeper functionality
Then again, isn't that what almost all advertising is trying to do these days: draw your attention to the superficial form so you forget to criticise fundamental flaws with the design?
> I hate when people say "Design is nothing, content is what matters..."
Design is absolutely essential... but only if everybody else is doing it.
(In that sense, it is a bit like advertising.)
Design and advertising are distorting the free market. We cannot see if one product is better than the other by looking at its design. We can only conclude that one company has put more effort into the design of a product, than another company and from there we often end up with the fallacy of concluding that one product must be better than another.
However, advertising and design nowadays only show that one company has bigger pockets. Or, in other words, money is spoiling (through design and advertising) the evolutionary properties (in terms of quality) of the free market.
> Good design is unobtrusive. Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
Excuse my French, but fuck Dieter Rams. I certainly understand this viewpoint, and I have no problem with folks that adhere to it, but my problem is with stating as some sort of axiom, with no evidence or reason, that "Products fulfilling a purpose are neither decorative objects nor works of art."
Humans have built things that are both functional and beautiful since culture first existed, and there is nothing wrong with designing products with a strong visual aesthetic viewpoint. If we all followed Dieter Rams' silly advice, all of our computers would still be boring beige boxes, maybe covered in stickers "for the user's self-expression."
Note I say this while agreeing with the latter part of your post. I'm not a fan of this particular design - it feels kitschy and shallow in the same way that Hollywood "hacker" movies show terminals that look like 3D game worlds. But that's just my personal opinion, and I don't fault people for feeling the exact opposite. I do fault people for saying that you shouldn't be allowed to try, and if you do that you are "not following principles of good design."
> Why does Western society seem to value form over function so much?
I don't think that's universally true, it's just a side-effect of marketing. Sometimes you redesign products to rekindle interest, but that rarely applies to other things (eg. public construction which is usually blunt but functional).
> Considering that the target audience is other designers, why does the presentation matter
I fail to see the logic here. Good design helps people learn easier. It's not like designers have some unique ability to learn equally well no matter how poor the design is.
> “From a design point of view, it’s pretty lazy,” says Hurley.
I love designers criticizing design used for business. It rarely incorporates any perspective on business objectives. As long as the design is achieving its goal then who cares?
> - better default styles that don't look like troff from 1985
Design is not something that should be tied to a particular decade. It's not fashion. Good design is timeless and only adopts to new technologies/media. Design is how well a particular solution works for the purpose of it. If it looks like 1985 and works well, there is absolutely no reason to change it. If it doesn't, then there is no need to look at "modern trends", instead we need to go back to the drawing board and find out what the problem is first.
Can you identify the problem with the design besides the superficial aesthetic (which can be easily themed)?
For some reason, designers likes it no matter it makes sense or not, so it is what you get. The current designer trending is just a shit show, nuke the usability for nearly no benefits IMO.
> Most people don't know and don't care what makes good graphic design.
But isn't the logo created for most people? Does it matter that, you as a designer, think it's bad if most people don't? I see it like modern fashion shows. I look at them and think the clothes are insane and I would never wear them, but obviously other fashion designers think they look good (I'm guessing?).
I do agree that the logo isn't super practical though, it's too textured and won't scale. I would take it to /r/slavelabour or Fiverr and pay someone to vectorize it and see what they come up with.
You're right. But it certainly includes how it looks.
You can't silo off certain aspects of interaction between products and users. The visual aesthetics of a product are subjectively at the front of the line when it comes to design.
Design is a "why not both" profession. You can't have a pretty looking site that doesn't function properly and still have a great product. You also can't have a functioning site that looks like shit and still have a great product. You need all aspects of design; visual, experience, functionality, etc. to come together at the same time to deliver a great product to the end user.
>Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not.
Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture Science.
My point is not that you're wrong, but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt. I hope you didn't pay anyone to acquire that opinion.
Then again, isn't that what almost all advertising is trying to do these days: draw your attention to the superficial form so you forget to criticise fundamental flaws with the design?
reply