<p>Published on <a href="http://ift.tt/2pk3DlS">| Prototyping: From UX to Front End &mdash; Medium</a> Sophie Tang <img alt="" src="http://ift.tt/2qNvhbp"></p>
<p>Paul Rand is one of the most important graphic designers in 20th century. But if you doubt that his design philosophy is still applicable to newer design fields, think again.</p>
<p>In his book <em>Thoughts on Design</em>, he demonstrated the validity of timeless design principles and emphasized the continuing relevance of these principles. 70 years have passed since the first edition of this book, but the book has become more relevant and speaks to the core of good design, from traditional print design to new disciplines such as user experience design. So what are the principles practiced by Paul Rand and what can we, as user experience designers, learn from them?</p>
<h3>1. The purpose of design</h3>
<blockquote><p>Graphic design — which evokes the symmetry of Vitruvius, the dynamic symmetry of Hambidge, the asymmetry of Mondrian; which is a good gestalt; which is generated by intuition or by computer, by invention or by a system of co-ordinates — is not good design if it does not co-operate as an instrument in the service of communication.</p></blockquote>
<p>Paul Rand stated that he believed <strong>the core of good design was as an instrument in the service of communication</strong>. Everything originates from here. No matter whether it’s aesthetically pleasing, ugly, bold, or avant-garde, it all comes down to what/how/why we communicate. Thus design can be evaluated by its effectiveness, or in other words, whether it conveys the right message from design to its audience in a perceivable and desirable way.</p>
<h3><strong>2. The designer’s problem</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>An erroneous conception of the graphic designer’s function is to imagine that in order to produce a ‘good layout’ all he need do is make a pleasing arrangement of miscellaneous elements. What is implied is that this may be accomplished simply by pushing these elements around until something happens. At best, this procedure involves the time-consuming uncertainties of trial and error, and at worst, an indifference to plan, order or discipline.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most designers share similar ideas, but seldom do people articulate this misperception, the implications and the negative effects as insightful as Paul Rand. Designers do not start from arranging elements to make them look pretty. On the contrary, there is no element to push around in the beginning. We start from facts and work with raw materials.</p>
<h3><strong>3. Materials</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>The designer is primarily confronted with three classes of material: a) the given material: product, copy, slogan, logotype, format, media, production process; b) the formal material: space, contrast, proportion, harmony, rhythm, repetition, line, mass, shape, color, weight, volume, value, texture; c) the psychological material: visual perception and optical illusion problems, the spectators’ instincts, intuitions, and emotions as well as the designer’s own needs.</p></blockquote>
<p>The same is true for user experience design in the current setting. The given material is technological capability and the products we work on. The formal material is more or less the same, plus a digital environment, the interaction between digital and physical world, and the merging of the virtual and the real. The psychological material also involves a time factor, which adds a whole new dimension as audiences often engage with a product over a period of time, and the product evolves and changes as users interact with it. So designers very often need to take ever-changing needs, emotions, and perceptions into consideration.</p>
<h3><strong>4. Humor</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>In short, the notion that the humorous approach to visual communication is undignified or belittling is sheer nonsense “True humor,” says Thomas Carlyle, “springs not more from the head than from the heart; it is not contempt, its essence is love, it issues not in laughter, but in still smiles, which lie far deeper.”</p></blockquote>
<p>As we talk more about functions, features and design systems, we tend to forget the power of humor in user experience design. When was the last time you put a loving heart and a hint of humor into your design? And when was the last time you smiled because the user experience moved you? Are playful onboarding pages or loading animations enough to be humorous and personal? Compared to print design and industrial design, user experience design is still in its infancy and there are much to explore to reach its full potential, to embrace humanity, to soothe pains, and to empower human beings.</p>
<h3><strong>5. Audience participation</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>Commonplace images and unimaginative visualization afford spectators little reason for being engrossed in an advertiser’s product.</p></blockquote>
<p>So true and the same is true for design in the digital era. How do we capture viewers’ attention within the first a few seconds they land on a homepage or open an app? How do we create “chemistry” and project the right impressions to the user’s mind? Often companies hastily switch brand images from one visual trend to another, copying what’s hottest at the moment. This practice results in undermining brand uniqueness rather than bringing out its own voice — the very purpose of rebranding.</p>
<h3><strong>6. Originality</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>The designer’s capacity to contribute to the effectiveness of the basic meaning of the symbol, by interpretation, addition, subtraction, juxtaposition, alteration, adjustment, association, intensification, and clarification, is parallel to those qualities which we call “original”.</p></blockquote>
<p>A good clarification is about what can count as originality. Not only creating a new symbol no one has ever seen could be credited as “original”. Depending on the situations, even a small change — for the purpose of effectiveness — is original and good design if it fulfills the need and contributes to the system. But there is a fine line between copy work and integration.</p>
<h3><strong>7. Designer’s obligation</strong></h3>
<blockquote><p>Even if it’s is true that the average man seems comfortable with the commonplace and familiar, it is equally true that catering to bad taste, which we so readily attribute to the average reader, merely perpetuates that mediocrity and denies the reader one of the most easily accessible means for esthetic development and eventual enjoyment.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is one of my favorite quotes from the book, and a good reminder for UX designers who primarily focus on making things easy to understand and ready to use. Even if our job is to design for day-to-day life, personal or professional, it doesn’t mean we have an excuse to create something uninspiring or boring. On the contrary, it is our obligation to constantly push boundaries, create excitement, and foster imagination for everyday life in both beautiful and useful ways.</p>
<p><strong>If you enjoyed this article, click the 💜 so more people can read on Medium. Thank you!</strong></p>
<p><img src="http://ift.tt/2p6C1EF" width="1" height="1" alt="stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSou"></p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://ift.tt/2qNvhIr">7 Takeaways for UX Design from Paul Rand</a> was originally published in <a href="http://ift.tt/2cAqCpx">Prototyping: From UX to Front End</a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.</p>


7 Takeaways for UX Design from Paul Rand

Top Stories