The 11th Principle of Good Design

I disagree with the triviality of the 11th point.<p>You'll note that in exactly none of Rams' original points does he tell <i>how</i> one is to go about designing.<p>In fact, I could even go so far as to say "Good design doesn't tell you how to go about creating it." It's difficult, and it lends itself to many different processes and methods depending on the situation.<p>It is <i>not</i> necessarily iterative, sometimes iterative design <i>detracts.</i><p>What's more, it contradicts point 7: "Good design is long-lasting." How can something be iterative and forever improving, and also long-lasting? You could go into the details and argue with me, but if you do I'll just say you're missing the greater picture.<p>The "good design" Rams' was talking about is not a process or a means or even a specific thing. It is a static idea of quality, one which is intended to be achievable, and a final product. Iterative might lead to that quality, or it might not. But adding an "11th point" so trivial and insignificant alongside the others dirties the entire collection. It deserves better.

I'll just contrast two quotes from the article:<p>- <i>Good design is iterative</i><p>- <i>Vitsoe 606 Shelving system, designed in 1960 by Dieter Rams. They still make them today, and to the same spec.</i>

Dieter Rams as any other designer would do lots of iteration before coming up with a design to meet the 10 principles. At some point with hardware you have to settle on something for the long haul. Somehow people managed in that A/B testing free world.<p>And would users say that the constant UI rearrangements in modern apps are good design? Absolutely not. The UI paradigm of putting buttons in set places on screen doesn't jive with constantly changing their positions, because you memorize the UI by those positions. This is particularly annoying with rarely used features because every time you use them it's a totally different UI.<p>Depending on constant iteration is not good design. It is a crutch permitted you by software. You can still come up with long lasting solutions if you give them some thought.

If you spend all your time repositioning the trees, you'll never grow a forest.<p>Not everything needs to be shipped every day. Or built. Or tweaked.

Rams' 10 principles of good design are properties of the design. This proposed 11th is a property of the process to produce that design. The giveaway is that his question is "how can we do iterative design?" rather than "how can achieve a design that is X?"

<i>The “agency mindset” is also to blame. Once the project is ‘done’ the designer delivers assets and get paid. From then on, the startup can put them on retainer or hand off the project to the in-house designer – or the… engineers.</i><p>This is an interesting point. Does the "agency mindset" really dictate that once a project is finished, it's finished? Even more, what's the difference between having an agency/designer on retainer as opposed to employed? The only difference I see is the amount of time/effort it takes to get an idea implemented (which is wholly based on that company or individual). Moreover, that chasm creates time to let an idea develop (and no, I'm not saying over thinking but at least considering the value/utility of the change or addition).<p>I think it's a matter of identifying <i>your</i> company's needs. Some can get away with a one and done approach; startups, too. It really depends on what you're making.<p>A solid agency will help to identify any caveats and get the design to a point where it doesn't <i>have</i> to be iterated on. There's always room for improvement, though, it's possible to make something excellent happen on the first swing.

<a href="http://dyli.sh/2012/08/28/On-the-11th-Principle-of-Good-Design.html" rel="nofollow">http://dyli.sh/2012/08/28/On-the-11th-Principle-of-Good-Desi...</a>

I don't think there is such a thing as an iterative design. A design is a design as it exists at a single point. You iterate because the design has some issues that are worth addressing.<p>The nice thing about iterative development is you can build amazingly complex systems that way, systems that are so complex they have no obvious deficiencies. Of course that's also the not-so-nice thing about iterative development too. But either way iteration is a development process. It isn't something that is a design characteristic.<p>I do think however that <i>good design is flexible.</i> It tolerates changes on all sides. Users can repurpose it. Developers can improve on it. Good design is robust in that it handles these changes. If you want to use that to iterate the design, go ahead, but that's the design principle.

It seems to me that this 11th point is in direct conflict with the 7th point. Good design is long-lasting. Iteration suggests change, and long-lasting suggests finality.<p>Software is tricky, the needs of the users can change over time, and the developers understanding of the project will most likely change over time as well. If not for any other reason than keeping up with competing technologies, or the introduction of new technologies.<p>So I would agree, iterating your application's design is very important. But ideally, if it was designed in strict adherence to the 10 principles of design, the essence of the application would be long-lasting. This would mean any needed changes would be intuitive.

Good design has always been iterative, but now design is never finished.<p>The 606 Shelving system certainly went through many iterations, tweaks and changes. At the time of its inception the method of production doesn't allow for the continuous deployment and testing of changes. To me, design from that period is monumental by definition because of this. You had to build something perfect because it only happened once.

It's a great article and definitely outlines the need for iterative design, but I don't agree that it should be a principle. More thoughts if anyone cares:<p><a href="http://williemorris.tumblr.com/post/30410924657/no-need-for-11" rel="nofollow">http://williemorris.tumblr.com/post/30410924657/no-need-for-...</a><p>Can you imagine the user experience if everything was constantly changing. Yikes.

"Good Design is Iterative" ? Nope, you reach good design by iteration, but once you reach that point there is not need to keep iterating.<p>If it's iterative then you never have a final design by definition, so how can you judge anything? You can just say "it's beta, it's not finished" to avoid criticism. That's the typical BS we hear from poor software developers all the time.

A peeve of mine is the dismissal of engineers who are also good designers - there are plenty of them. Sorry to burst that bubble, but one of branch.com's designers is a CS graduate, the other specialized in HCI, both could be called front-end engineers if you wanted.

I hadn't seen the blog before. I just gotta say, that Kudos button is awesome.

<i>Good design is iterative</i><p>I can't help but feel this when i look at architecture. Medeival stone masonry, for example. When it takes decades to build, you can tweak the design. In particular, this is evident to with respect to "human scale," 3-dimensionality, volumetric balance, and proportionality. Much early modern architecture, was just designed to look cool as a model; or to photgraph well in publication. Much of this architecture has a <i>PRE_FAB</i> feel to it (brutalist, etc). Ironically this emerged in the context of (a) more powerul modeling tools; and (b) more degrees of freedom in plastic materiel (ie, modern materials, RC etc).<p>Edited: brevity