Simplicity

[wailunchin]

Hello all!

I'm writing a paper on simplicity in graphic design. Basically my proposal is that the more detailed a design becomes, the more confusing it is.

For me this seems to be an issue of visual communication, and how much detail is necessary to convey the message. Anything on top of the necessary detail is distracting from the message, and thus confusing the audience.

I'm relating this to graphic design in general (including, but not limited to: signs, pictograms, maps, diagrams, charts, logos).

Any ideas/thoughts?

[mac.FINN]

You may want to relate this to the design movements of the past. For example how Victorian designs were lavish and very ornate; whereas, later styles such as Jugenstile and Minimalism were straight to the point designs - with no embellishment.
You may also want to research Art Noveau, Arts&Crafts, and the Industrial Revolution. Make sure you pay specific attention to furniture and architectural design aswell.
Also look up the phrases "Form follows Function" and "Form is Function".

This should give you a solid background for any argument you want to make.

For a more topical take, in respect to amount of detail, definately look at package design. Perhaps you could compare two well know companies with distinctly different design styles. Like say, Microsoft and Apple (who are kind of a hot topic right now).
So if you haven't seen it... http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15531

Good luck
:D

[Drorain]

what if the design of your piece is meant to be confusing, what if you want to communicate confusing...This may be needed in a variety of pieces. Also just having the bare minimum doesn't incorporate simplicity, the amount of content alone might drive this beyond the level of simplicity you seek to achieve. the goal of the design should also be to grab attention, to inform, and to hold interest...all aspects of communication. I think it really depends on the context of the design

[Jam]

When arguing your case, surely a well designed and thought out piece can be as busy or complicated as you like. A layout that has an underlying hierachy of information and flow can be added to time and again without loosing the viewer. It will only seem confusing and scary at first but a well designed layout will draw your eye from start to finish.
It is only when a viewer doesn't understand the hierachy or is viewing a large number of different items at one time does this become confusing.
Language, cultural differences will play a part in how others view a piece of design.
Think of Hong Kong, Japanese or Arabic artwork to illustrate the point.

[twogun]

to me, design is like air.................the cleaner it is the less you see, the dirtier it is the more you pick up.

most of the best design campaigns in history go unoticed purely due to the fact they tick all the technical boxes perfectly and the work comes together in a natural sense.

[tZ]

Its all about the hierachy. If the hierachy works and there is working areas of interest and a focal point then complex or simple- it works.

That is so speaking ffrom the design stands alone.

When we start talking about graphic design then the addition of a communication comes into play. If the design does not commmunicate due to it being lost in simplicity or complexity for that matter the piece fails.


Also, complexity or simplicity for that matter does not make up for lack of a initial idea/concept. Because in order to communicate one must know what it is they are communicating at first- correct? You can't visual represent a communication which don't know.

That is generally the thing that bothers many about complexity- the lack of an idea/or concept- not it being to simple or to complex- because as graphic designs we communicate and if a piece lacks a communication or it is lost due to the means in which executed then its useless.

So its not simplicity or complexity for that matter its the lack of an idea or initial concept to drive the communication hat makes it unsucessfull.

Nosw lets think about your initial question

my proposal is that the more detailed a design becomes, the more confusing it is.

As stated above if there hierachy is lost then yes if not no.

However, is it easier to find a blue penny on a white piece of paper or is it easier to find a blue penny in a large amount of regular ones?- it bad I know but, hopefully you get the idea.

Once, you have an idea its generally easier to convey it simplictically- because simplicity is more so immediate then complexity. However, with a well controlled hierachy either or can be sucessfull its just in the way one chooses to execute… thats really all.

To sum up:

1.) design must have an idea/concept. Without a concept everything else fails and complexity does not make up for the fact there exist no communication and I think thats more so what bothers people about complex design then the fact that its "complex". How esy it is now days to get the software people just think that they can throw to together a complex design and have it work just because its complex and that is not true.

2.) lost in communication due to complexity. Complexity should be inientional and meaningfull not just complex because you like compex and not just simple because you like simple. If complexity loses the message then its not appropriate and vice versa if simplicity doesn't really convey the message then it is not sucessfull- hand inhand either way.

3.) Is it easier to control a hierachy with three compnents or 20?- that should be obvious. I mean just because there are alot of things on the page doesn't mean the page can;t work. It just means you need to put more time in development of a working hierachy one which conveys the information and doesn't lose it. Alot of times that is what you begin to see with some complex design- the hierachy gets lost- its not that it is "complex"- becvause what is complex? Its that it looks "complex" because so so so so so much is going on- generally this is due to the lack of a hierachy. If you have a well established hierachy then that same design would most likly look much simplier then viewed when everything was in focus.

4.) immediacy- simple is egenerally more so imeddiate. However, how about we look at this the other way around- people like detail and what not correct?- So once you have your audience if there is no "decor" to look at at otherwise what is to hold your viewer- the "design"? Then again you allready communicated your idea so why do you want to hold your viewer- or is it even nessecary? Then again You may just want your adience to see the idea- so you may not even need to hold them- correct?

So it all comes down to the appropriatness of the execution at hand. If holding you viewer is important then detail and most likly nessesary. However, if you just want to say something then a well executed simplistic composition with a imeediate idea/concept may just be the better way around.

It all depends. Either or are really more "confusing"- when you know what your doing. However, I quess you can arge on the idea of "immediacy", but, then again comceplx can also be immediate- I quess it all depends on your definition of complex…

Comclex to me is generally ill establishment of a hierachy- not that it is "complex"- for that matter- and if there is no real hierachy then that in itself is just bad design.

Hopefully that all makes some kind of sense.

[wailunchin]

Thanks for all your replies guys!
tZ! What you've said is EXACTLY what I've been thinking about for the past few weeks! It's just the only point of reference I've had is my own confused thoughts and contradictions.

I totally agree with your point on immediacy (4). I mean for a street sign it needs to be immediate so that's easier to achieve with a simple design, but for the London underground, people have time to look at all the features, so it doesn't need to be so immediate.

Just a couple more things I've been thinking about:

What does hierarchy stand for? Is this JUST layout? or does it ecompass many things? What I mean is on the london underground map, the layout is very well planned, but the colour of the lines is also very important to understanding the map.
Is it just things like hierarchy and colour? I read that consistency helps simplicity to work, making things easier to understand. Do we have to look at all design principles/elements (contrast, balence, proportion etc)?
I'm looking for some sort of underlying reason what makes a design enlightening and what makes one confusing. Maybe it's presenting information in a way we're used to (hence the consistency), so it really depends on each person's knowledge/culture etc.

I have no idea, hopefully fuel for some good discussion! :)

[typographics]

Hello all!

I'm writing a paper on simplicity in graphic design. Basically my proposal is that the more detailed a design becomes, the more confusing it is.
no offense, but your hypothesis seems fairly conclusive. its like saying, the harder you press down on the accelerator, the faster the car will go.

but then again, most designers that claim to be minimalists still add a lot of senseless decoration in their work. i think the definition of "minimal" or "simplistic" is easily confused and distorted. some designers will say, "i wanted to create something minimal and impactful". however, it has tons of unneeded garnishments and details. designers are always told that minimal graphics are best, but seldom are instructed on how to properly make them.

i guess im just ranting and not really adding anything of value, so ill shut up now. good luck with your paper!

matthew~

[tZ]

hierachy revolcves around contrast whether it is in size, color, value but, the basics are the elements- line, shape, color, value and texture. Contrast between them in a design can create a hierachy.

Ex. are you going to look at a black sqaure on a white background before you look at a 50% gray sqaure on a white background- same size?

Another would be to say are you going to see a figure before you see a inorganic object in a composition regardless of the value, color, ect?- the figure generally because it is the first thing we connect with- as we are figures in ourself and connect with what seems familier.

There are a whole bunch of examples I can give you but, hierachy is design. Without a hierachy there becomes tension and unless that tension is being used to further communicate an idea it is bad design.

I wrote a whole litgtle thing up a while back explaining hierachy, contrast and that good stuff and if you don't know what a hierachy is then… thats the first thing you should learn about and how to establsh before addressing it within your paper.

[wailunchin]

So, in your figure example, there is hierarchy because the figure gets more importance due to our connection with it.

If that is true, then hierarchy is almost psychological (i.e. whatever causes a bigger reaction in the person is the dominant element of the design).

You could say hierarchy is a combination of how the brain works in general (i.e. seeing larger type as more important, seeing a black square better than a grey square) combined with pre existing knowledge (i.e. what we can connect/identify with: like a picture that looks like the house we grew up in).
... the latter being less predictable.

Am I making any sense?

[cjoe]

If you look at information theory there are ways of figuring how much data needs to be present to gain useful information. Again there are ways of figuring out if there is too much data so the information ceases to become useful, usually because of the time spent getting the information.
To apply this to a visual sense, i guess you can only use trial and error, but be as scientific as you can be.

[orkaknos12]

This is an inductive fallacy.

Graphic design is good when it is an economy of visual detail: more detail=less ability to communicate (this is a value judgement)
Graphic design is good when it communicates well (also a value judgement)
therefore when graphic design is economic in it's details and it communicates well - it is categorically good graphic design (value judgement posed as fact).

Your teacher knows this and you'll be chided for it.

Why would you want a simple map? I prefer thorough ones. Why would you want a simple architectural layout? I'd like to know how to build my house in every detail. How do you define or measure the economy you pose exists? I should point out that you can't measure this. Simple is a reductive, and misleading term. Is simple a white page with writing on it? is simple H.R. Giger's work? Audience confusion is judged case by case - demographic by demographic and is not a standard for measuring the impact of a visual design. Just think about the implications of such a universe.

-Jon

Hello all!

I'm writing a paper on simplicity in graphic design. Basically my proposal is that the more detailed a design becomes, the more confusing it is.

For me this seems to be an issue of visual communication, and how much detail is necessary to convey the message. Anything on top of the necessary detail is distracting from the message, and thus confusing the audience.

I'm relating this to graphic design in general (including, but not limited to: signs, pictograms, maps, diagrams, charts, logos).

Any ideas/thoughts?

[typographics]

Your teacher knows this and you'll be chided for it.
wow. im really shocked at your statements. i know all of my design teachers would heavily disagree. not only teachers, but a whole lot of professionals. what you just said goes against everything i was taught in college.

Why would you want a simple map? I prefer thorough ones.
seriously? again, i think most people would disagree. if im designing a map to guide people to my house, why would you want a map full of things that dont pertain to the directions being given? that only clutters the map, and makes it harder to follow. thats map design 101. think of the famous 'beck map' for the london underground. simplicitic maps are easier to follow...period.


Is simple a white page with writing on it?
no. 'simple' is...um..simple. its a design philosophy that states anything that is unneeded and unimportant shouldnt be included. its when you are communicating a specific piece of information, to a specific target audience, to achieve a specific result. in order to do that effectively, you need to focus on your concept, and not add items that dont help enforce your message. basically, dont add anything unnecessary. thats what 'simple' means.

Just think about the implications of such a universe.
ya. i can imagine such a universe. its a universe of clear and easy to comprehend design. its a universe where clutter doesnt exsists. its a universe where design makes peoples lives better and easier, not harder and more frustrating.

[orkaknos12]

[QUOTE=typographics]wow. im really shocked at your statements. i know all of my design teachers would heavily disagree. not only teachers, but a whole lot of professionals. what you just said goes against everything i was taught in college.

Do you see the point though? If I'm navigating a ship through a difficult maneuver, I pretty much want any piece of information possible on the chart - no matter how minute it might seem to someone on a sunday cruise. does this make the map I want a poorly designed map - or does it happen to be simple to me and no one else except those navigating icefields? There's no way to measure or pin down this invisible threshold. Knowing when enough is enough in design can't be given a formula or studied scientifically - it's complete when the end viewer is serviced by it. Going far enough for the sunday sailor would leave me with a cracked hull. Similarily, If I were employed to inspect systems in the tube, I couldn't do much work on the london underground with a beck map because that map is designed for a different viewer, and its simplicity and usefulness lies in that viewer's mind. There's a fundamental disconnect between well designed things and simple things.


no. 'simple' is...um..simple. its a design philosophy that states anything that is unneeded and unimportant shouldnt be included.

How do you define unimportant compared to important: how can one measure this in a scientific fashion - importance is always a value judgement of the individual viewer. Also, that's a very narrow definition of the word 'simple'. Simple in this context is a vacuous term (and fairly loaded) - by calling something simple, you're comparing it to something else. we may innately know what simple means, but if that 'something else' is not defined, it really means nothing. Do we know for a fact it's the right quality of simple? did the designer go far enough? can we ever conclude that something has achieved a perfect simple and well communicated state? Sure, if you teach kindergartener's beowulf, it won't be simple for them - it may not even be simple for the scholar. That doesn't make it a bad work. Just because the scholars contemplate what shakespeare was doing adding this side narrative and that word change doesn't mean his work is bad, to the contrary his work is very complex. Again, we're connecting things that are distinct. simple = well designed = good is a fallacy.

-Jon

[wailunchin]

Do you see the point though? If I'm navigating a ship through a difficult maneuver, I pretty much want any piece of information possible on the chart - no matter how minute it might seem to someone on a sunday cruise. does this make the map I want a poorly designed map - or does it happen to be simple to me and no one else except those navigating icefields?
So yes, simple is relative to the viewer, but as long as its simple for the target audience then its a good design. If you were doing work on the London underground with a detailed structure map, you would want it to be as simple as possible for the task right? (key words 'as possible'). If there were loads of unnecessary elements it would be harder to find the elements you were looking for (eg 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100).
Again, we're connecting things that are distinct. simple = well designed = good is a fallacy.
True, so you’re saying while simple design does not mean good design (I agree), too much detail does not mean bad design either?

BTW, what ever happened to hierarchy? And does anyone know any theoretical material relating to this? I think I need to do some reading!

[Samakimoto Graphics]

"Purity and simplicity" : I was a Graphic design trainee straight out of high school when i first heard this term. It was from my first Graphic design mentor. I'd just joined the little firm in a quest to find direction towards a career in design...no regrets since.

He said it to me when he saw my look of frustration when designing my first logo, and effectively my first official computer graphic for a music producing house (They still use this logo 11years down the line). I'd started out with horrendously elaborate design based on pencil sketches I'd made. After having about 10 concepts thrown out, I went back to my computer and made a circular squiggle on illustrator, put a concentric squiggle inside the larger squiggle, alternated the "fill" and line colours put the name below these and WHALA!!!! an 11 year old logo was born that day.

I worked as an illustrator for childrens' books and found that more detail was required in books for different ages: You required the most detail in educational material for the early years (6 and below) - say alphabet and numbers books. As the kids grew older , you played around with the level of detail, focusing more on the main subjects discussed in accompanying text and diminishing the background, sometimes leaving it white.

Now, I work as a graphic designer in a GIS (cartography) lab and the phrase is even more ambiguous...most clients want pretty "simple" maps for posters and publications, but when doing serious research they want absolute deeeeeeeeeeeeeetail, I can't over emphasize detail here.

So is LESS, MORE?

I say it's the context of communication and the client or end user that help you decide the level of detail (where emphasis can be on the text or the image/photo/illustration- to echo wailunchin (http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/member.php?u=9506)

[twogun]

So is LESS, MORE?



amen!

[cjoe]

wow this thread is getting heavy. I'll read it later.

[philben]

I believe in less is more; you don’t need everything to communicate anything. Most powerful graphics appear very simple and straight to the point.

Nevertheless, what is simplicity:confused:? Your definition may be different from your target audience. What you call simple may be complex to the other person.

Know the taste of your target audience, how they perceive and interpret graphic works. So far as there is nothing distracting your audience’s concentration then the work is simple enough:p.

Caution: distracting elements may be used intentionally for attention:p.




You may check De Stijl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Stijl) (1917-1928), Art Deco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco) (1925-1950)

Good Luck mate!!!

[tZ]

Anything can work is well thought hierachy.

It all depends on what you want to say and how immediate the message needs to be.

For instance, if I am designing a street sign do i want to make that sign complex?

Most likly not because people will pass by it very quickly and the information needs to be immediate. Since, the interaction will be minimial inmpact needs to happen right away.

On the otherhand, if i am designing a poster the immediacy may not be nessecary to effectivly communicate the idea with the gievn amount of time per interaction by the viewer. Since, the viewer will be much more open to the idea of stopping and looking at it then pulling over thier car to look at such things as a billboard or street advertisment- meant to be viewed from the car.

This is were the idea of hierachy comes into play. How can we get the viewer to STOP and look at the poster or better yet how can we get the viewer to immediatly see our message on the billboard putting aside the fact that they are going to be passing by at 50-80 mph.

Philben brings up another good point that we can now address- what is simplicity?

I touched upon it earlier in my previous statmente but, I don't think there really is simplicity or even complexity in good/sucessfull design- let me explain.

If somethinging is to complex is that to say that it seems- cluttered?

If we were to look at a piece and say it is to busy- does that mean it is complex?

I personally find that people interpurpt "simple" and "complex" as design without a proper working hierachy.

A hierachy which tends to get lost in detail and/or simplcity and that is just bad design alltogether. So I rerally don't think there is "simple" or "complex" design that is good… because if something looks simple or complex that is most likly due to it having to much or to little.

Knowing what we know as designers if it has to much that generally means the hierachy and important elements get lost rather then stand out as they should(accents and focal point). This is most likly due to detail and poor design rather then it being to "complex" or "simple".

Since, in order to actually aswer this question on must think about how the brain actually interpurts simple and complex? Since, it is a very subjective method of thought. What is simple to me may not be to you- correct?

So what does design do?

Design offers that "inbetween"- that is why we learn to design and that is why someone who buys the software or just goes on whim doesn't have- and that makes good design. Since, good design is not dictated by "complex" or "simple" its dictated by being "just right" and that just right is something all designers know how to do rather then just throwing elements on page and justifying it by saying- oh… so you don't like complex?- or- oh you don't like simple?- work should be niether or- it should be inbetween- and that is what design is that inbetween- not complex or simple. Since, compelx means there is to much and simple means there is to little and both are not good design- they are poor.

cause as designers we look for the visual balance- not either side of that balance.

So to answer you question- Good design is not complex or simple it is inbetween.

Basically my proposal is that the more detailed a design becomes, the more confusing it is.

Yes and no- the more that is going on in a composition the increaingly harder it becomes to control the hierachy. That is why a lot of "complex" design is in deed- COMPLEX- because the major hierachy gets lost not because there is to many elementds within the composition. This is most likly due to be uneducated not "style"… like many seem to justify it by.

Going on-in order to control more elements it makes much more thought then just throwing crap down.

Think about juggling- is it easier to juggle on item or ten? Its not that either or are "correct". Its just that it becomes increasingly difficult to control more items and that can be said likewise in design.

Likewise, composotions with little going on the direct opposite. Empahsis can be created through isolation- there for, a composition with only three elements on the page is going to be much easier to control then that same compsoition with additions of textures to each element- or as you call it- "detail". Since, the less there is the easier it is to control. Since, if you begin to intorduce textures and detail to those individual elements atmospheric perspective or contrast need to begin to come into play. So those three pieces of "important" information still visually read as important even with the adddition of detail to them- get what I am saying?

Since, in order to introduce more elements into ones composition they need to have a working hierachy of elements first- and that is were design begins to become- "complex". When that initial hierachy is not achived before intorducing the "decor".

So its not that design that is composed with many elements is "confusssing"- in general, but design with many elemenns that are not properly controled become confussing and complex because the viewer gets lost and rather then be provided a easy path to follow the viewer is left with non at all- which becomes interpurted as "complex" or bad design in general- and that can be said for design that is to "simple" or "complex".

Since, design revolves around control and without control its just… art so to speak.

Now as for the appropriatness of the amount of elements on a page that all depends on a variety of factors. The most important (I would think) is the what the target audience seems to like. So thats a brief explaination of alot vs. a little in regards to elements. However, it can also depend on what needs to be said. if the message in it self is staright forward and needs to be immediate (like the sign) or if it doesn't and needs to be more so "attractive"- the poster- or is the poster just there is display information?- then it may be a considerable idea to have less going on then a poster that needs to keep attention upon immediate interaction- right?

I didn't want to get that "philosophical… but I did and there you go.

So thats my logic.

[Samakimoto Graphics]

Ahmen! to that too!

[Jeizzavelle]

I want a map to show me where I'm going. I don't want a world map if I am driving to Wisconsin. What is the purpose of the design? To give information to the customer/consumer? So, if you are trying to get a message across "Eat at Joes" or "No Parking" or whatever, why do you want to clutter it up with a bunch of other crap? I like to add a little flourish to my signs, don't get me wrong. But I am VERY careful not to crowd the mesage or take away from it. You need to make sure that your design is asthetically pleasing without being too "busy". You want the customer's eye to be drawn to the message and you want said mesage to be appealing without very much work. People are lazy or hurried when they are seeing most media. You have a moment to get their attention. If they look at your design and ask themselves "what the hell is that?" :confused:they are irritated and that irritation will then be transferred to the product or idea. That's not what you want. You want them to look and see the message and remember it. No Parking needs to be clear and easily read. Eat at Joes needs to be appealing. If Joe's sign makes them happy they are more likely to eat there. If Joes sign is a crwoded mess they are going to go Yeah, right, Eat at Joe's my butt. Don't over design. Start out with the most basic idea you can use and if it NEEDS something add one thing at a time but don't get carried away adding bobbles or you will end up with everyone seeing the bobbles and missing your message.

[reuber1]

wow this thread is getting heavy. I'll read it later.Damn straight, this thread is like a book!

I really think it depends on the project, I really do. There is so much subjectivity and variables to certain projects that sometimes simplicity is good, and sometimes it is possible to be too simple and maybe a more complex concept is in order. As far as visual simplicity however, I don't know if it's minimalism we're talking about (again, like cjoe, I haven't read it all yet so if someone has commented on this, hooray for you) but sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it's not. Then again, you don't want to add more than you need! Make sure what you have serves a purpose! Keep those swooshes and lens flares out of the newspaper layout will ya, unless it's an article about sun ray damage or Nike. Basically what Jeiz said, just don't eat at Joes or Joe's butt; both are equally gross.

[elseyjames]

to me, design is like air.................the cleaner it is the less you see, the dirtier it is the more you pick up.

most of the best design campaigns in history go unoticed purely due to the fact they tick all the technical boxes perfectly and the work comes together in a natural sense.

excellent

[jilted0ne]

Taking in today's ideas adding simplistic complex 3d renders by a few friends, imply put some guys decided to take a 3d programs and in that take a sphere and shape and stretch it to its limites to the point it becomes too complex to understand and then use it as a logo or poster design. In the end you have Dada simplicity, and that is what i seem to follow, simplicity is very very good for design but there are limits you need make inorder to add some more complexity to give weight. Simplicity is good and like a drug too much is bad (in our case, Boring).