
Design Principles - vinnyglennon
https://principles.design/
======
pasta
I think I will stick with the 10 principles of Dieter Rams:

    
    
      Good design is innovative
      Good design makes a product useful
      Good design is aesthetic
      Good design makes a product understandable
      Good design is unobtrusive
      Good design is honest
      Good design is long-lasting
      Good design is thorough down to the last detail
      Good design is environmentally-friendly
      Good design is as little design as possible

~~~
majewsky
I agree with the last 9, but I have my quarrels with the first one. It just
begs for people to make innovative designs even though the original one worked
perfectly. Like a microwave oven with dozens of buttons even though the one
with two dials (power, time) and the door-opener button works 99% of the time.

~~~
martin-adams
I also agree that the first (being innovative) isn't quite right. To be
innovative depends on the state of innovation of what everyone else is doing.
To be innovative you have to do something new, which is different from what's
already been doing. So it's implying that you have to be different to have
good design. I don't agree that good design has to be different.

All the rest are spot on in my opinion.

~~~
theoh
I think we can save Rams' list by stipulating the following: design is an
activity. If you don't need to innovate, you don't need design, you should be
following prescribed/conventional practices. The final rule underlines the
sentiment: whenever you engage in design, you should only do as much of it
(innovation) as you need.

Architects, for example, are always dealing with slightly unique or novel
spatial circumstances, which is why they are considered designers. Building
identical suburban houses from a pattern book is not design -- and it's not
innovative.

I think Rams' thoughts do all make sense if seen in this light.

------
quickthrower2
The color hurts my eyes. The heading font sizes look out of place. I think
this site needs some design principles.

~~~
donjoe
Seriously, the page just copied Reclam's design used for almost every Reclam
book there is:

[https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/I/41Ae3ah0jPL...](https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/I/41Ae3ah0jPL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

~~~
mtpn
I bet that for folks who are designers and get the reference his choice makes
perfect sense and it might even be nice. But for me, most importantly, after
loading the page it was unclear what to do. Use the menu? Scroll? I don't
think it's good design for users to have to guess where the content is or what
they are expected to do.

~~~
moocowtruck
you're not a design person you wouldn't understand (LOL)

------
toddmorey
Genuine question: Is there an applicable takeaway from principles this vague?

"Tolerant: Handle errors respectfully.

Effortless: Don’t make demands or place restrictions on your users.

Accommodating: Be approachable, uncluttered and give people room to manoeuvre.

Consistent: Follow standards, guidelines, conventions and best practices."

~~~
didgeoridoo
This is a great point. "Principles" should be about taking a stand about the
trade-offs between two desirable things. They can then be used to help guide
you when these things come into conflict. Who is trying to make a product that
is intolerant, burdensome, aloof, and inconsistent?

A framework I usually use is a "this over that", where both "this" and "that"
represent things generally considered "good". The Agile Manifesto contains a
brilliant example of this:

\- Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

\- Working software over comprehensive documentation

\- Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

\- Responding to change over following a plan

Notice how everything on the right is also a "good" thing, but the manifesto
is making you CHOOSE.

~~~
crdoconnor
I've seen #1 used many times to solve the problem of "too many regressions"
with "the team just needs to communicate more" or "we should set up regular
meetings to deal with this issue".

It was hard to argue that those teams weren't following both the message and
spirit of the agile manifesto, as individuals and interactions were plainly
taking precedence over tools and processes.

It doesn't, after all, say "individuals and interactions over tools and
processes, except when tools and processes make more sense".

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt, choose
this over that", and not "always choose this over that".

That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but with
people refusing to use common sense - or even more likely, with incentives
within the organization being so aligned that decisionmakers benefit from
making bad calls. It's something that happens surprisingly often.

~~~
crdoconnor
>I think the proper understanding of those principles is "when in doubt,
choose this over that", and not "always choose this over that".

That's exactly how the teams I worked with applied it. They were in doubt and
they decided on individuals and interactions.

>That said, the problem you described isn't really with the manifesto, but
with people refusing to use common sense

It absolutely _is_ a problem with the manifesto and it _isn 't_ a common sense
decision.

Expending a not insignificant level of resources on automated regression
testing and CI, or indeed, any other kind of tooling or process is _far_ from
a common sense decision - it's a pretty delicate trade off, in fact. Some
tooling is worth it, some isn't.

If the manifesto said "think carefully about tooling and recognize the
delicate trade offs involved" then maybe the problem wouldn't be with the
manifesto. It doesn't. It says "individuals and interactions over tools and
processes". Ergo meetings > tools.

------
olivermarks
This feels more like corporate mission statements and unique selling
propositions than 'design principles' to me, am I missing something?

~~~
chillingeffect
It's probably the context. These examples are _mostly_ (not all) for corporate
contexts, complete with highly generalized wording to reduce individual
responsibility and promote selective enforcement, as opposed to design
principles for democracy or managing physical disabilities.

------
elishacook
These read like brand attributes to me. They are too general to be design
principles. It’s not clear if the interaction design principles are intended
to be universal or specific to Airbnb? If the former I must call shenanigans.
There are no universal design principles.

------
donquichotte
Man, I like the idea, but these typos are seriously bugging me. On the main
page it says "Who use them?". In Tim Berners Lee's page, it says "They look
simple, [...], but the complicate what was a very clean design of elements and
attributes". It's "but they complicate", right?

~~~
err4nt
Both of those typos pass spell check ;) The "Who use them?" one bothered me
too!

The first few words on the Tim Berners-Lee page I saw were: “Simplicity is
easily to quote but often ignored in strange ways.” which is another typo that
passes spell check, but makes no sense as-written.

------
mattmanser
It's funny Asana is somehow the 2nd design principle example, as they're an
utter mess.

I've used Asana on and off since it started. Because I'm an occasional user,
it feels as if every time I come back to it, something seems to have changed
and I lose all reference to where my tasks are.

Right now, whenever I go there every few months, I have to remember that my
client's tasks are buried in a dropdown in the top right.

Worst part is, it doesn't look like a dropdown, it doesn't look like a menu,
it doesn't look like a link. It's just black text saying "Overview" next to my
picture.

Also, for some reason the default task list I land on is completely empty. I
have no idea why. At one point I was using it for quite a lot of stuff and
there are a load of unfinished tasks in it when I start clicking in categories
in the right. But there is no indication anywhere on the screen of what lists
might actually contain something.

It's a bloody awful design.

Their design principle no. 6:

 _Be consistent and standard, and innovate when it’s worth it._

So you can have design standards all you want, but when your designers think
"consistent and standard" means something completely different than your
users, it turns out they're not really meaningful.

------
keepsmiling
Good design does not hurt your eyes ;)

------
carapace
> Malcolm Wells, the father of underground building, wrote an article that
> appeared in the "Next Whole Earth Catalog" about, among other things, this
> simple and ingenious device for rating the desirability of a building. It's
> a form that you fill out by rating a building or site according to a bunch
> of common-sense criteria about what makes it good, healthy, and sustainable.

[http://firequery.blogspot.com/2009/05/wells-
scale.html](http://firequery.blogspot.com/2009/05/wells-scale.html)

------
davidwitt415
I appreciate what this site is doing, however, it's missing one of the major
benefits of Design Principles; they are also guidelines for evaluating a
design. This is important because it creates a framework for stakeholders to
understand what they are judging.

------
notoriousjpg
Always hard to use these when they often can't be translated into day to day
tradeoffs.

------
tzahola
Looks like this site put more effort into the "Design" part than the
"Principles".

------
soupflavor
100% of the people interviewed work @ microsoft... and that's where I stopped
reading

~~~
laser
Wrong thread
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15892898](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15892898)

