The Secret to Understanding Design

We often discuss design. Should it be simple or complex? Should it be colorful or grayish? Do you make it low-tech or media rich? The answer can be found by looking at how design breathe.

Everything is breathing. You breathe in and you breathe out - either being full of air or having none at all. It is a continuous motion between two extremes. Take simple vs. complex. We constantly move between wanting things to be ever simpler - or ever more complex.

The secret to Complex vs. Simple design explained

Why do you think Apple's iPhone has a much more complex design (especially in the interface) than the iPod? Why didn't they keep it simple? It's because we have had it with "simple" - now we want more. We are now moving in the other direction, towards a more complex and rich environment. In 12-18 months we will again get fed up with the complexity and turn towards another period of simplicity - and so the motion continues in an eternal cycle.

Notice: Every curve is different and has different durations between its peaks. "Simple vs. Complex" roughly follows the example above. Other curves - e.g. colorful vs. low on color - have a slightly different look. The trends will also be different in other parts of the world and in each profession (the trends on the web design does not necessarily follow the trends in e.g. car design).

The trick is to know how to use this to your advantage.

Not everyone is a trendsetter

The first part is to realize that not everyone is at the same place. Trendsetters are in general far ahead - closely followed by the early adopters. These people are the driving force. They are the ones that drag everyone into the future.

The majority, however, is about a year behind the trend and the laggards haven't change yet. They only move ahead because old products are being replaced and decommissioned.

Note: The visionary are often very far ahead of everyone else - and thus often creates amazing stuff that never sells because the market it not ready for it.

Where to be?

The second part is to know how far ahead you need to be.

You need to aim for the "Cool Zones" - Where your products are close to the extremes. If people are moving from simple to complex (as we are now), you need something very complex to stun the crowd. This is what Microsoft did when they unveiled their Surface technology a few days ago.

Similarly, when we get fed up with the complexity and want simplicity, you need to make it very simple to make an impact. This is what 37Signals did a few years ago with their project management tool "Basecamp". People was getting fed up with the complexity of Microsoft Project and wanted something simple. Basecamp delivered just that.

Note: If 37Signals had released Basecamp today it would be much less successful since we are now moving away from simplicity.

Never aim for the middle. That is where the mediocrity is. Making products that are neither simple nor complex are just boring and useless. They have no sense of emotions; there is no energy.

And, never aim for the "dark side" of the curve (the red zones). Making a slightly less simple version is a very bad idea if people want more complexity.

When not to publish your product

The last trick is to know when to publish your product - and when not to.

The best moment is when we are starting to move from one extreme to the next (the green zones). This is the time when people realize that they want something else. They are susceptible to change - to something new. Act on it!

You will start to fall behind as we get closer to the extremes (the yellow zones). The cool companies have already marketed their products and the trendsetters are beginning to look in different directions. You can still make an impact if you make a really cool product - but you will not be seen as one of the innovative types.

And, you need to lay low when we reach the extremes. This is the point in time where people get fed up with it (the red zones). Wait until the early adopters have realized that they want something else - that they need to go in the other direction. It doesn't matter that the majority hasn't changed yet. It is the trendsetters and early adopters you want to reach.

The last thing to do is to identify what design aspects that is relevant to you - and what direction we are moving in. Here are some examples:

Simple vs. Complex
Colorful vs. low on color
Visible vs. hidden technology
Ordinary text/images vs. Rich Media presentations
Efficiency vs. Exploration
Manual vs. Automatic
Big vs. small
Rounded vs. edgy
One-page vs. many pages
No effects vs. fanciness
Social vs. isolated
Work vs. fun
Long vs. short
Sporty vs. comfortable
Strong vs. fragile
Masculine vs. feminine
Independent vs. company
Etc.

And always remember that the world never goes back to what it was. The kind of design we had in the past is not the one we will see in the future. Simple designs of the 80's looks hideous compared to the simple look of the iPod. Complex TV sets in the past looks old compared to Microsoft Surface.

Comments

cubicray - Jun. 3, 2007

Very nice article, thanks!

Marcin - Jun. 4, 2007

hey,

how do you know it is time to complex design now? There always will be room for simple and complex, for colorful and grey and so on....

I think you can't predict fashion or upcomming trends in so easy way

Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 4, 2007

Cubicray, Thanks!

Marcin. I look at the world around me and the design movements of the past. This pattern of moving between extremes happens and has happended as a continous motion for a very long time (several 100 years).

I believe it to be an accurate way to understanding the fundamentals of design.

Jonathan - Jun. 4, 2007

Isn't it more about context? The wave thing may help you to understand design fashions, but the difference between good and bad design can't be subject to fashion unless you're saying we pass through eras where nothing works because it's badly designed. That would seem a bit crazy to me, and certainly not supported by the evidence.

Jesper Rønn-Jensen - Jun. 4, 2007

Previously, I've heard Jakob Nielsen compare this phenomenon to a pendulum swining back and forth.

See, for instance his alertbox "Novice vs. Expert users" (2000)

Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 4, 2007

Jesper, Damn - beaten by Jakob Nielsen by 7 years - that doesn't look good on my reputation as a futurist :)

Jonathan, If there was no innovative companies around, we would indeed see periods of time where nothing works. Take the time before 37Signals released Basecamp. It was a time where many project management tools where made, but most of them sucked. It wasn't until 37Signals took the risk and jumped to the next extreme that we saw something interesting (illustrated in 4th graph above).

BTW: I do not think 37Signals knew this - I just think they got lucky

Marcin - Jun. 5, 2007

Thomas, do you really think if Basecamp would be done today it would fail?

And again - if MS Surface technology would be shown 5 years ago it wouldn't made so big wow efect? I think even bigger.

What I say is there would be no failure if your design is good enough.

If you are a little driven by current fashion it help you a little, but overdosing actual trends can make your product funny after a few years.

Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 5, 2007

Marcin,

No, I do not think Basecamp would have failed - but it would have been much less successful. It was released in a time where people was annoyed by the complexity of the market and wanted something simple (and it was simple). Now we have tried simple, and find that it is lacking in capabilities - we want more.

I respect that you disagree with me, but I believe this to be true. Of course, if you make a really good product, it is going successful in some way or the other. There are over 6 billion people planet - 1000s of different professions - 100s different cultures - and many different levels of technological evolution (how do you think people in parts of Africa sees Microsoft Surface). And we have the huge gap between the trendsetters and the laggards.

Good products are likely to find a market. But if you want to make a great product, one that really makes an impact, you have to look at in which direction design is moving and stay ahead of it (as illustrated above).

Kevin Cannon - Jun. 5, 2007

I'm afraid I have to say that I totally disagree with this assumption.

Yes, markets do have trends.

Yes, product complexity can change as a market matures.

Yes, many things move in cycles.

Yes, timing is right for many products.

However, going from that, to assuming that we swing between complexity & simplicity, it a large leap without any real correlation and is dangerously incorrect.

The point in your graph are more accurately positioned on market maturity graphs, which look similar but without the wave.

Jonathan - Jun. 7, 2007

The more I think about the conceit here, the more I think it's wrong. Thomas seems to be saying that "good design" (as in something that solves a problem well) is dependent on the time it appears. That not only does a huge disservice to the likes of 37Signals and Apple, but is also a completely incorrect reading of the facts. If a design is successful and it's simple, then other designs will imitate that simplicity at a later date until somebody bucks the trend and people imitate that instead. It's not a matter of some pendulum swinging independently of design fashion.

PS: Personally, I think Base Camp sucks to high heaven, but that's another story.

Andy Boyd - Jun. 7, 2007

Thomas, this was an EXCELLENT article... I posted a link to it in my blog...

http://andy.threetwenty.com/2007/06/07/the-secret-to-understanding-design/

Gautch - Jun. 7, 2007

I have to agree with the concept in general.

The trick is to know where you are on the graph.

Thomas may have said "This is where we are now (pink dot)", but I read it as "for the sake of the concept, lets say this is where we are".

By reading into this article that way, you can see how this "concept" works. You can see whats coming up in your trend, based on where we are in the trend. The hard part is pin pointing that.

-Gautch

Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 7, 2007

Andy, Thanks!

Gautch, Thanks for that. Yes, the graphic is made for the sake of the concept - and as I also wrote below the graphs "The trends will also be different in other parts of the world and within each profession".

I do believe that within my profession (web applications) the "now" dot is where I have put it. Remember that for in the past people talked about making "web applications", and especially within the concept of "getting things done" (simplicity). Today the message has changed. Now we talk about creating "Rich Internet Applications" - something that is not simple to make.

But, as Gautch accurately explains - this article is not about where a specific trend is at the moment. It is about how to understand trends, and how to stay ahead of them (how to turn changing trends into your advantage).

Gautch - Jun. 7, 2007

Thomas,

Well said.

Gamermk - Jun. 12, 2007

Excellent food for thought!

So I guess the real ticket is choosing whether your company should be complex or simple and adjusting your business timeline so that every 2 years you release your product in the "cool" zone of your area of design :D

Ryan King - Apr. 6, 2008

Microsoft Surface looks just like this:

http://current.com/items/76392902_bj_rk_has_one

(which is based on Ubuntu Linux).

I won't conjecture who copied who, or if it was concurrent invention, or what. But they look identical.

Interaction design - Apr. 14, 2008

Nice artile Thomas,

Do you actually think this pattern is always the same? Would it not be possible tahat the actual complexity would gradually grow while having these ups and downs?

Thomas Baekdal - Apr. 15, 2008

Do you actually think this pattern is always the same?

In simplified terms - yes I do. But it is important to remember that the world is not simple, so there will always be fluctuations and events may occur that forces the world to "skip a beat".

Another important thing is that each up or down is never the same. It is never the same kind of complexity, nor is the same kind of simplicity. It is always different.

But if you look at the history of pretty much everything, then you will see that the world goes from one extreme to another at somewhat regular intervals.

Interaction design - Apr. 18, 2008

Intersting we are discussing here. But I still think the graph is wrong. If you have 'complexity' on the y axis the pattern you have in the graph assumes the same complexity over time. Should the top and bottom of each next cycle not be a bit higher then the previous one?

Tom - Jun. 22, 2008

Thomas, in post #3 your say that the pattern of moving from extremes has happened for 100 years. Why not 200, or 1000? Is this a new phenomenon? Why or why not?

You say this is an accurate way to understand the fundamentals of design. Ignoring shape, color, texture etc? Can you show this process at work in more than just two products? How 'bout in nature, in music, in architecture?

Of late there seems to be a growing willingness for people to assert something is true simply because they can think of it. But we've known for a long time that proof is required before we can assert we know the truth.

A crackpot rail against those who disagree and claim a conspiracy against them. A geniuss offer evidence for others to test.

Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 22, 2008

Tom,

I wrote "This pattern of moving between extremes happens and has happended as a continous motion for a very long time (several 100 years)".

A crackpot rail against those who disagree and claim a conspiracy against them. A geniuss offer evidence for others to test
- Tom

You know, you just asked me to provide the complete flow of everything over more than several 100 years. That might be a bit too much.

But in any case, I did not write that it is an accurate way to understand the fundamential of design. I wrote "I believe it to be an accurate way to understanding the fundamentals of design."

...And I still do :)

Chris - Jun. 22, 2008

If we were to think about this more, what you are referring to are the requirements not the design. Generally we see requirements grow until there is an innovation that changes the game. The success of the design is the ability to support the business requirements through design practices.

For example. The requirements of the mini cooper far exceeds that of many cars. However the design is simpler than many cars. To do that BMW had to spend a great deal on design, but they realized the cost benefit and made that business decision.

If you compare iphone to ipod you will find that the given the number of business requirements the iphone is just as simple as the ipod. And if you consider the iphone compared to it's direct competition it is far simpler.

A better way to look at this is that given the same set of business requirements the better design solution is a simpler approach.

Treo vs iphone

Walkman vs ipod

Ad hoc combination of FTP, Excel and email vs Basecamp

MySpace vs Twitter

Now the real question is about business requirements. This is the critical piece where we compare utility vs cost vs competition vs secret sauce. This is where the hard work is, and what will make or break a product before anyone even draws a line.

If a business chooses to compete on more utility(more requirements) then you will see the trend toward complexity go up. It will continue to rise until design practices break down, an the product space falls into mediocrity or worse (for example word processors or American cars of the 1970s).

If you want to know the secret to design it is carful requirements planning, clarity in mission, and willingness to spend the money on design.