TrippingWords unalterated verbiage

The Concept of “Intelligent Design” – Form vs. Function

After the heady philosophical discussion on design and originality in the previous article, I figured that it would be an opportune time to introduce something more fundamental to design theory: the concept of “intelligent design”.

Intelligent design is the philosophical assertion that all design options and choices (for example, the colour of your chair, the positioning of your coffee mug handle) are supported by clear reason (function); there is a concrete scientific rationale behind design and there is no instance whereby design spontaneously ‘occurs’ without prior methodical planning and regard for function. Whilst most arguments on intelligent design are often employed to explain how the universe is formed and structured (which inevitably concerns topics such as evolution and theology), the theory can also be applied specifically to the web design field. For the sake of clarity, I shall now provide two hypothetical examples to explain intelligent design from a philosophically oriented perspective.

Scenario 1:

Imagine holding about fifty coloured buttons in your hand and then imagine dropping all of them instinctively on the ground, without any thought or deliberation. Take note of the emergent pattern formed on the ground by the sporadically placed buttons. Would you consider that design?

Scenario 2:

A client asks you to design a website for a web seminar conference to be held next month. After finalizing the details, you draw up wireframes and build simple mock-ups in Photoshop before moving on to the design process proper, by hand-coding it in CSS. 

The Analysis

Proponents of the intelligent design thesis would refer to scenario 2 as a more clear-cut case of design. Scenario 1 however is a little trickier because there is no intentional purpose and function which explains the eventual pattern formed by the buttons (it is a random arrangement of buttons organized without any structured thought). As designers, we are inclined towards adopting the belief that good design represents the seamless marriage of form and function, and as such we are (whether we like it or not) subscribing to the concept of intelligent design, the hypothesis that supports logical reasoning behind design decisions.

I have to however respectfully disagree with certain (but not all) principalities concerning the notion of intelligent design. In my opinion, both Scenario 1 and 2 fall under the classification of “design” within their own independent set of terms. My main gripe with intelligent design lies in how it is used in the web design field; as a design philosophy that is rooted to a specific mould of “practical functionalism” thus disregarding the broader implications of what functionality entails.

The Fallacious Balance of Form and Function

In 1896, architect Louis Henri Sullivan announced that, “Form ever follows function.” His quote implies not so much the importance of function over form, but rather that the two are intricately intertwined and inseparable, such that one cannot co-exist without the other, in the field of design. Following Henri’s much popularised assertion; several design experts have erroneously proclaimed the need for design to find a neatly poised balance between form and function. But the truth is (at least to me), that balance doesn’t exist! There is no point in chasing intelligent design because ultimately the equilibrium between form and function is unattainable. In an industry reputed for creative flexibility, designers are expected to test and even challenge/tilt that balance to varying degrees.

If good design is about striking a perfect balance between form and function, then design would certainly be caught within the banality of uniformity and standardization.  Design exists, not to plug the gaps between form and function, but to portray a series of different configurations of how form and function interrelate. Louis’s statement on the inextricable nature of form and function is spot on, but it is often misconstrued to mean a type of “balance”. I elaborate on this later in the article. 

Great Designs Play Naughty

Great compelling designs are bold enough to challenge the metaphorical balance between form and function. Certain designs tend to veer towards form while others prefer the conservative approach of sticking by functional logic (minimalism comes to mind, although the latest argumentative trend seems to support the idea that minimalism is less about function and more about form, but that’s another debate altogether). The point is, there are no fixed rules to play by in the fluid and topsy-turvy world of design. 

Functionality and Usability are NOT the Same

Studies on web usability and user experience (UX) design are commonly interpreted as subject areas which strive towards achieving that elusive balance between form and function/utility. While these topics are specifically geared towards encouraging sound functional practices, they do not represent an effort to impose any form of symmetry between form and function. Web usability tests and user experience surveys are tools used to ascertain if a website achieves its primary objectives; they serve an institutional purpose of ensuring that the minimum browsing standards (think W3c) are met through a reader’s ability to effectively engage with the on-site content.

Research on web usability and related topics, are not supporting fulcrums that somehow initiate the balance between form and functionality. They simply suggest ways in which the medium (the web) can emerge as a more conducive space for users/readers. A design that is usable may not be functional and a functional device (a coffee maker for example) can possibly be a letdown in terms of its user-intuitiveness. World renowned usability expert, Jakob Nielsen, defined web usability as a necessary condition for online survival, and that is what it precisely is, a sine qua non for web operability rather than a determinant of the form-function equilibrium.

There is Beauty in Function and Function in Beauty

Back in the 1900’s, in the European industrial era of steamships and manufacturing machinery, function was of paramount importance to drive fledgling businesses; mass production materialised as an invaluable generator of income. These machines were often candidly referred to as “beasts” due to their sheer efficiency and durability even in disastrous weather conditions. It is however grossly inaccurate to regard these machines as lacking in form/beauty. The preciseness of the mathematical algorithms and physics behind these “beasts” contained a beauty that was inexplicable. Bertrand Russell once famously referred to the mathematical physics of the industrial age as a beauty that was “cold and austere”.

It is equally important to acknowledge that there is function in ornamentation/decoration; items that are perceivably beautiful but without an obvious functional purpose. (see Scenario 1). Design is a “social creature”; it communicates to us in a myriad of ways and it captivates our attention by instilling and provoking ideas and thoughts in our minds, even when its purpose is not explicitly known.  I’ve included an example below to further illustrate my point.

The kaleidoscope is a tube of mirrors containing loose coloured beads which produces a visually pleasing effect when viewed through one end. It has no explicit function, but it conveys its “message” through a “vocabulary of colours”. It produces a hypnotic geometry that demands our attention as we try to identify the logical patterning of various arrangements of colours. The function of the kaleidoscope lies in its aesthetic complexity, but its design emphasis remains inclined and rooted towards form rather than function.

Concluding Remarks

I certainly agree that every design has to sustain a certain degree of both form and function, but my problem with the intelligent design hypothesis stems from how these elements are often expected to co-exist harmoniously and in balance.  I will leave you with a few questions to ponder upon.

Will there ever be a balance between form and function?  Can design simply occur and manifest by sheer chance/coincidence, without us resorting to some sort of logical explanation on causality and evidence?  Do “designs” that appear unintentionally (without conscious deliberation and action on part of the “designer”), have their own independent form and function, or are they even part of design at all? Would love to hear your thoughts!