Implicitly Simple

Written on 2013-08-31 • conversation (4) • Read in: 1′06″

In a recent article about the Instapaper redesign, the designer wrote:

When I got the opportunity to redesign the Instapaper website my goal was to do justice to the service Instapaper provides. In the FAQ quoted above, Marco referred to the “information-skimming, speed-overload mode” we often enter while surfing. I think of Instapaper as a place I can go to take a break from that mode, and I wanted the design of the website to signal and support that break. To do that I focused on simplicity.

Emphasis is mine. This statement, however logical it appears, is a good indicator for some of the things that are wrong in the current UI design debate. Whether your next design should be skeuomorph, flat or skeuominimal, is an irrelevant question. Some of us seem to have forgotten what design is about. We have—perhaps unwillingly—replaced interesting discussions with a debate about something as volatile as style.

Simplicity in and of itself can never be the goal. You cannot make something simple, just as much as you cannot make something beautiful. Good design is implicitly simple, because the whole purpose of design is to demystify technology. Make that your goal. If you cannot do that, you have failed from the outset.


PS: this is neither about the Instapaper redesign nor the designer who wrote the original article.

Conversation is closed

Conversations close automatically after six weeks. Feel free to contact me directly if you have feedback on this article.

Interesting piece. I do believe that design should enhance a mindset and not strive to be a style. I do not agree that the sole purpose of design is to demystify technology.

Imho it is to demistify things that are abstract. The purpose of a good design(er), to me, is to synthesize things that are ‘understandable’ into things that are relatable/actionable on an intuitive level. These things go beyond technology, into the realms of non verbal communication, persona’s etc.

So I don’t agree. You wanna fight about it?

Koen_Verbrugge · Sat 31 Aug 2013 · #

@Koen I believe it is a matter of semantics, but we are essentially saying the same thing: we’re the traitors to Plato’s idealistic world. If you want to fight, you can take it up with him ;).

Xavier · Sun 1 Sept 2013 · #

Have you read Kenya Hara’s book “designing design”? You will find a similar philosophical approach to function and aesthetics in the series of experiments developed for the book. Especially the square toilet paper roll, by the architect Shigeru Ban, which imho stand as a perfect example of your above statement.

Pascal Wicht · Sun 1 Sept 2013 · #

@Pascal unfortunately not. And the book seems hard to come by these days. But I will keep my eyes open for any opportunity to own it, or at least be able to read it!

Xavier · Sun 1 Sept 2013 · #