Dita ROMs is one of the most influential designers to ever live even if you don't know who he is you probably use the products that were inspired by his thinking every single day he crafted the 10 principles for good design which are kind of like the design Bible but I can't help but wonder is our blind commitment to these principles holding us back from designing a better future for example this iPhone it's Sleek it's simple it's supposedly a product of Dita ROMs less but better design philosophy but throughout this video you'll see that less is
not always better and the Mantra is rooted in 20th century thinking it's not the answer to the sustainable design problems we're facing today we'll go even deeper though Beyond ROMs celebrated 10 principles there is a key ingredient that was revolutionary for his time but no one seems to talk about now before you all take out your pitchforks and torches convinced that I'm desecrating the design Bible it's important to note that ROMs himself never wanted these principles to be permanent they were always meant to be updated so let's get to it so the first principle I
want to talk about is good design is honest on the surface this seems like a great principle I mean who can argue with honesty but I think this runs counter to what a designer fundamentally does on many levels if we use dieter's definition of honesty I could make a very strong argument that good designers are about as honest as used car salesmen hot dog a sale in fact we're probably even worse because at least with a used car salesman you know exactly what to expect with designers their influence is so subtle that it often goes
by undetected honesty is just not the first word I'd use when describing good design so take this pair of sunglasses as an example it covers half your face and the right pair that's designed well can accentuate your attractive features while downplaying your less flattering ones a big part of design is about focusing people's attention on positive things and away from negative things it's like an Instagram filter but for products data romp's principle of honest design probably has its roots in the Bauhaus concept of Truth to materials essentially truth to materials promotes authenticity arguing that you
should never make one material look like another but my question is why not keeping up with the eyewear theme let's look at the glasses frames that Dita ROMs is wearing they're probably made from cellulose acetate acetate is meant to mimic the coloration you'd see on tortoise shell frames from the early 20th century the only way to get this material honestly is to kill a hawksbill turtle which is a critically endangered species and then turn its shell into a pair of eyewear frames but it's been illegal to use tortoise shell as a material and product since
like 1977. so our Dita ROMs glasses dishonest because they're trying to make cellulose acetate look like tortoise shell I mean I guess under the Bauhaus definition yeah but I don't have a problem with it and Dieter doesn't seem to either hundreds of thousands of fake tortoise Shelf frames are made from cellulose acetate every single year it's a beautiful pattern and if you try to harvest it the honest way you'd have to hunt and kill Turtles to the point of Extinction it's the same thing with any design even mundane things like this external hard drive it's
designed to appear thinner than it actually is by breaking up the surfaces into different materials and textures is that dishonest I mean I don't think so a big part of design is about elevating the perceived value of a product take a look at this 50 calculator designed by ROMs and his team everything is harmoniously spaced the glossy dome-shaped buttons reflect light like little shiny jelly beans the Strategic color accents make the most important buttons pop everything about this design just screams balance precision and Clarity and that's the exact emotional response you want to have when
you look at a calculator it's a tool for precise calculation and that's why this calculator retails for fifty dollars but this Staples calculator is four dollars I mean sure the brown calculator is probably functionally better because of its good design it's probably made a little bit better but it's not 10 times better you're paying 10 times more for the emotional response that this object creates in you this isn't just a calculator anymore either it's a symbol of Purity and Order plus the brown calculator is a design icon which is also totally emotional and sentimental none
of that value is grounded in any kind of objective truth it's still just a plastic calculator so is it the design dishonest and how it creates a meaning beyond the sum of its parts or is it dishonest with how expensive it is I would say no but according to the way that Dieter wrote this principle you would think yes but here's the thing dishonest or not it's still a great design as long as people value things Beyond just their functional utility this will always be the case that's why I don't agree with the idea of
good design being honest at least as far as ROMs defines it if some of this sounds familiar I actually made a video on this topic last year that was going viral but a copyright claim brought it down I do have many new insights on this topic though so keep watching if you could click the like button to help me out with the YouTube algorithm I'd really really appreciate it so that I can get get this video back to where it was it makes a really big difference in spreading this important message to Young designers but
anyway I haven't even gotten into the act of actually selling your ideas in a corporate setting as a designer there's an old saying in the design world that paper lies like hell designers use all sorts of visual trickery like beautiful sketches and renders to sell their ideas a great designer is a great salesman it's just that designers convince you with pictures and prototypes whereas traditional salesmen convince you with words if you walk into any design studio and look at any of the concepts pinned up on the wall you'll naturally gravitate towards the ideas that are
drawn or rendered the best you can hide all sorts of design flaws with a well-presented concept sketch you can distort the proportions you can use flattering Lighting in your renders or place your physical prototype on a pedestal to make it seem more valuable I just find the good design is honest principle to not really be in line with my experience or looking for captivating and emotional stories imbued in our products we don't always want honesty sometimes we want enchantment before we get into the next section I want to talk about shaper 3D imagine the convenience
of Post-it notes and the sophistication of 3D CAD coming together in one software package that shaper 3D plus you can use it on your iPad this comes in super handy when you're on the go and inspiration strikes or you're in the middle of a client meeting and want to sketch up a quick High Fidelity concept if you're just starting to learn the basics of Cad and 3D printing this is an amazing tool that has a far more accessible and intuitive user interface than any other 3D modeling tool that I've used using a stylus to draw
is really where shaper 3D stands out plus it's a lot more affordable than other more expensive software CAD packages it's just a great mobile tool for creating and showing 3D models on the go whether you're designing something as simple as a workbench or as complex as an engagement ring shaper 3D has you covered it's a great tool for engineers designers Architects 3D printing hobbyists and even students or recent design grads go click the link in the description to get 10 off shaper 3D with a code design Theory 10. back to the video the next principle
is good design is as little design as possible the classic less but better Mantra is the crowning Jewel of ROM's principles but it's probably one of the most commonly misinterpreted ones first of all it's led to an entire generation of designers losing their minds every time they see a rounded rectangle oh I mean sure this is great design work but why does it look like they were all designed by Dieter ROMs in 1959 if you really respect Dieter ROMs as a designer you would Forge your own path just like he did secondly many designers took
this principle to mean let's just strip everything down to the bone we often see a surface level application of his principles resulting in products that may appear simple but are anything but simple in terms of functionality cost or usability getting rid of essential usability features might make things visually simpler but it often complicates the object's function when a product loses too many of its controls the remaining ones are left to pick up the slack so you have two buttons that do like 10 things holding down tapping performing a finger ritual dance you've traded intuitive interaction
for a device that needs an instruction manual or chairs that are too uncomfortable to actually sit in for more than 10 minutes or computers that are missing headphone jacks or functional ports the true purpose of minimalism was to ease user experience by limiting options but instead it's mostly used as an aesthetic statement so you end up with visual Simplicity that's a functional nightmare it's like telling someone to clean their room by shoving everything under the bed complex design doesn't always over complicate it clarifies less isn't always more sometimes it's just less there's also the ironic
Twist of manufacturing processes as it relates to minimalist products the mission of the Bauhaus movement and the same spirit that data ROM subscribed to was all about making good products that were accessible to everyone but then you've got Apple using manufacturing techniques that are exorbitantly intricate and expensive the result is a design that's visually minimalist but financially Out Of Reach for most people in their pursuit of as little design as possible they've ironically created products for as few people as possible and then you've got Johnny ive's 65 000 turntable it's a blatant symbol of desire
and opulent statement piece but that was never the point of the Bauhaus or minimalist movements they're aimed to create simple useful designs that are accessible to everyone one it was Beauty born out of purpose and uncompromised by mass production but somehow we've worked this ideology focusing on The Superficial aesthetic while neglecting the core principles now I want to be very clear here the problem here isn't about minimalist design or even the existence of luxury products there's not even an inherent issue with merging these two elements I've done it before too the real problem here is
with the unquestioning idolization of Dita ROMs and its principles while not understanding their true meaning there is sometimes a more practical reason why minimalist design is so expensive though and it's not just because it's what's in style it's also because execution for good minimalist design has to be perfect it's the difference between simple and elegant versus boring and basic fewer elements means that every detail is under a spotlight so ensuring these details are perfect can drive up production costs in this way the pursuit of minimalism can ironically lead to exclusivity rather than the intended goal
of universal accessibility a customer would never know notice these little specific details but it's a major reason why Apple products just subconsciously feel premium and Amazon Basics products feel kind of ordinary ironically you can make an argument that Amazon Basics is more in line with data ROMs less but better philosophy than Apple is this extends even to color which is slowly disappearing from our world because of a push for More understated Design now we're stuck with a bunch of lifeless boring gray objects surrounding us everywhere we go there's nothing wrong with minimalist design it's just
that it's not appropriate for every single product so a lot of people have misinterpreted ROM's principle of as little design as possible that's not his fault however I do still think that the Merit of the principle itself needs to be critiqued a little bit take a look at this computer mouse it's a classic example of Aesthetics overusability and it's a problem I mean sure this Mouse looks really nice but I had to use this mouse in high school and I can't even begin to describe how uncomfortable it was to hold Dina ROM says that he
hates when beautification is the priority for design and I agree with him in many any cases like with this computer mouse but I think that a lot of times this as little design as possible idea is used as an excuse to make emotionless design that's cold and oversimplified and not in line with what the customer needs datarom sometimes criticizes the automotive industry for being overly focused on speed and emotion rather than functionality he says that he hates the idea of aesthetic styling and decoration I Hate Everything what is driven by fashion especially the cars they
change the styling things every two years Dieter wants people to be logical rational actors but nobody makes decisions that way not even him I mean the guy drives a Porsche not exactly the most sensible choice for a car you can't just ignore the fact that people have visceral emotional responses to certain products I've watched hours of Dieter ROMs footage when researching this video ROMs always seems happiest when he's talking about or driving his favorite cars I know that might not seem like much here but trust me he's a really serious guy he does not smile
a lot cars are an emotional purchase most of them do not use as little design as possible they're usually much more expressive and ROM's Porsche is definitely no exception by the way I'm not criticizing ROMs for driving a nice car I think it's great I'm merely using it to point out that not all products should use as little design as possible usability is tied to Aesthetics The Styling of a product matters if nothing else my design experience has taught me this even the most logical design without emotional resonance will fall flat Form and Function are
one and the same a product appearance guides our interaction with it and sometimes you need a little bit of the embellishment or Flair another thing to consider is the value of decorative Beauty purely for beauty's sake think about what a massive social and economic benefit it is to have beautiful architecture that's adorned with exuberant decorative cultural elements pretty much every new city skyline today looks the same I know that Dieter never intended for this but this is the Dark Side of minimalism we express who we are and what we value through the products we use
all of these designs have so much personality and cultural heritage and I think that's a beautiful thing that should be celebrated not ignored on the bright side gen Z is pushing more towards maximalism in design faced with dull interiors and a world filled with negativity it seems like they're opting for this hyper-maximalist vibrantly colored aesthetic as a counter-reaction plus with the Advent of artificial intelligence tools it's simpler than ever to achieve a maximalist aesthetic and this is slowly making its way from images online to fashion and finally into physical product design obviously whether it's minimalism
maximalism or anything in between it needs to be done with a deeper sense of purpose and meaning here's how I might revise this principle good design communicates what is necessary it's just an idea maybe it's a little bit vague but feel free to leave a comment and we can talk about what you might replace this principle with and on that note feel free to subscribe or don't but you should you should subscribe I don't know just subscribe so now next principle is good design is environmentally friendly no one wants to design products that are environmentally
unfriendly at least it's not on purpose the whole idea of less but better from an environmental perspective seems logical but this is actually a very Antiquated 20th century line of thinking let's use fuel-efficient cars as an example I mean sure it's more efficient and doing more with less but it's still burning fossil fuels or slowing down the harm but the system itself is still harmful this is the classic less but better strategy also known as Eco efficiency it's like applying a Band-Aid to a blister caused by poorly fitting shoes sure the Band-Aid might help the
pain for a little while but the real problem is with the poorly fitting shoes in the same way Eco efficiency is the Band-Aid that fails to tackle the root cause our Reliance on unsustainable resources but there are ways to actually create positive impact it's called eco-effectiveness a term from the book cradle to cradle it's not about doing less harm it's about doing more good some companies are growing packaging materials and other products using mushrooms and natural substances instead of focusing on making less harmful products they're making products that can be composted at the end of
their life cycle enriching the soil basically less but better Eco efficiency is about doing less harm whereas Eco Effectiveness is about doing more good it's about regenerative processes now I know that Dita ROMs understands the environmental issues that we face today we have serious infrastructure and transportation problems it's also far easier said than done to completely change an existing corporate and social infrastructure but the main point is that less but better is only treating the symptoms rather than the core disease itself which is Humanity's blind quest for ruthless growth at all costs let's get into
good design is long lasting I generally agree with Dieter sentiments on this one but like I said before if a system is regenerative and not actually harmful to the environment it's okay if it's disposable regarding the fashion comment there is a legitimate human need for self-expression through fashion that will probably never go away these shells were reshaped and used as jewelry and they're about 150 000 years old self-expression in fashion is a deeply ingrained human need that's probably been around for as long as we have now I do think that we consume too much you
don't need to buy a new phone every year disposable fast fashion is horrible but doing away with something as integral as self-expression through the things that we use and wear is never going to happen ultimately people are going to buy what they want to buy it's the designer's job to help them do it more responsibly a potential amendment to this could be something like good design is regenerative next up is good design is thorough down to the Last Detail ROM specifically says that nothing should be arbitrary or left to chance but I actually think that
arbitrary chance is a big part of any creative process in this clip Dita ROMs is pruning the trees around his garden he Likens the gardening process to design which is a beautiful metaphor gardening is organic and messy and imperfect like tending to a bonsai tree you can nurture it situate it in good sunlight prune it but you can't control every Leaf's shape or each Branch's exact trajectory you can't force it to your will you have to let it flow naturally and design mirrors this process it's a collaborative effort where each person on the team brings
their own perspective to the project the best thing you can do is guide the process in the right direction and trust that the other people you're working with have the end user's best interest at heart you can't really control it sometimes technology makes it impossible to be too thorough anyway especially with generative design tools you write software algorithms that can often have a life of their own same thing with a lot of modern AI tools Dita ROMs could not have possibly anticipated this when he wrote These principles but that's exactly why they need updating but
even without advanced tech there are also so many instances where I'm sketching something and accidentally draw a line in the wrong spot and then I realize oh wait a minute that actually might work better than what I originally had in mind a lot of times these happy accidents end up becoming the final product good design is unobtrusive I have actually agree with Dieter in regards to most tools tools usually should act as an extension of the user's body they shouldn't get in the way but the thing is that most products are not strictly tools I
can think of dozens of successful products that are very obtrusive and very decorative the PS5 is one immediately that comes to mind the design really stands out and is very imposing I know lots of you will disagree with me but I would still consider it an appropriate design for its use case high heeled shoes are another great example of a very obtrusive design that people still choose to wear that's also why there are so many different styles of shoes people want to express themselves in different ways now I'm betting you Dieter would say that these
examples aren't good design they're just stylistic fashion but like I said earlier in the video if you care about usability you care about styling and the way that a product makes someone feel that directly impacts its function let's move on to good design makes a product understandable I think this is probably one of his best principles but even still I can think of several counterpoints take these watches is by Nuka for example they're not really the most understandable way to read time but the novel experience of learning how to read the watch is fun you
feel a sense of accomplishment as you master the tool over time you especially see this with luxury watches that have all sorts of weird dials and extra features not everything needs to be about Effectiveness it's why we go fishing with a fishing rod rather than just electrocuting everything in the pond it's like learning a musical instrument lots of things are specifically designed with a learning curve in mind because half the fun comes from navigating learning and mastering the product over time next we have good design makes a product useful you can't really argue that good
design makes a product useful but you can definitely argue about what useful means the juicy Salif is one of the most obvious examples of this it's supposed to be a juicer but it's pretty much completely useless for that purpose you might say that its use is not to be a juicer at all but instead its purpose is to strike up conversation it fulfills a more abstract need of being a provocative object it also fulfills the need of bringing conversation missions around design and usefulness into a more mainstream context or if we look at the Lamborghini
Countach most would say it's a great design if you're interested in going fast or maybe to inspire the next generation of sports cars but if you're a soccer mom who needs to transport her kids and all of their gear to and from school it's not a useful design at all I don't think that this is a bad principle because who doesn't want useful products but once again useful could mean a lot of different things to different people next up is good design is innovative I'll keep this one short it's true most of the time however
I don't think that all good design must be Innovative many of dieter's designs for brown haven't changed that much over the last several decades and they're still just as good as ever last but not least good design is aesthetic this one's fine although maybe a little bit vague since my idea of aesthetic and dieter's idea are clearly very different overall I think the Dita ROMs principles are great as a starting point they're excellent guiding principles if you're a young person just starting out in design ROMs actually created these principles for a student students when he
first started teaching they were never meant to be these immutable truths another problem is that you can't make a prescriptive set of principles for all of the design industry every part of the industry is just so radically different Dieter wrote These while working for a German electrical appliances company in the mid 20th century the principles fit perfectly for that use case but they don't really apply to a lot of other situations it's kind of like how you hear those vague platitudes you see people writing about on LinkedIn or whatever when creating a guiding set of
principles some of the most important things are making sure that they're simple understandable and concrete I think that dieter's principles are simple and understandable but they're not very concrete because of how broad they are at the beginning of the video I mentioned that data ROMs had an ace up his sleeve that catapulted him to Superstar status in my opinion the real thing that made Dita ROM special is that he's a systems thinker and that car we'll do that again Dino ROM stood out above his peers because of how he focused on the way design can
mold Society to be more egalitarian and Humane that's why his products are so iconic you can feel that Grand Vision subtly shining through his products for ROMs it wasn't just about creating a shelving system or a toaster but it was about envisioning an entire system Around The Way We Live I've championed this mindset in my design work and I believe it's crucial to the future of design but ROMs beat me to the punch by half a century I'm really surprised that this isn't discussed more often context changes and ROM's principles don't have to be our
only guide what we should borrow from ROMs is his faith in Design's potential to shape a brighter future like I said earlier I made a similar video on this topic that was taken down one person left an incredibly insightful comment and I'm so glad that I saved it before it vanished into the digital ether forever it wraps up ROM's principles beautifully while adapting them for our changing World good design bows to the fundamental principles of life it's never just about out the product it's about the all-encompassing system it must respect all people the designers Engineers
Factory workers end users and of course the most important user Mother Earth damn that's good that is a great principle to live by big shout out to Liz Engel for this comment if you want to support this channel consider joining me on patreon you'll get access to all sorts of cool things like working files for some of my personal projects rough drafts of scripts that have a lot of additional information and a whole bunch of other stuff it also allows me to focus on topics that you and I want to talk about rather than whatever
we'll just get the most views thanks for watching everyone I hope you learned something and have a great day
