Communication x Functionality
Writen on 14/10/20 at 13:50
Published on 14/10/20 at 16:00
By Patrick Edem Glavee
As a young Junior Designer, I have to assume all of my realisations have been at some point publicised by a more experienced creative. Such is the nature of thought.
In order to guarantee human survival, the survival of nature, improve quality of life, live a richer, fuller life and save the planet, we as humans need to fix how we communicate. We communicate in a method once convenient, but continuously destructive. A form of communication that is embedded in every human creation and interaction. Based off of our distinction of ‘otherness’, we seperate ourselves from the flow of nature. Ultimately placing us on an unsustainable path towards destruction. Nature cannot be balanced with a missing link (humans) and humans. cannot exist for long independent of nature.
In order to bridge the distanced gap between humanity and nature, we should be inclined to look at our ways of communicating. The gap in question has been created and nurtured through a seemingly wilful ignorance to communicate coherently with nature, particularly in terms of our human to nature relationships which I believe is dictated by our human to [man made] objects relationship.
A lot of creatives will have their own perspective on the fundamentals of design. But in my eyes the two main headings are ‘Communication and Functionality’, but rather written as ‘Communication is coincident with Functionality’ or ‘Communication x Functionality’.
‘Communication x Functionality’ Tower
In no specific order, all ‘legitimate’ fundamentals of design fall under the two headings.
'Communication and Functionality’ are inextricably tied to one another.
Encompassed within apostrophes and capitalised, in order to allow you to understand that these words are not just another string of characters, but rather a combination of characters of similar importance to a country or a name.
Before the controversial bit, it’s probably best we agree on something. The definition of design. In my eyes, design is about how effectively you can communicate the function of a design/object, in a seamless intuitive way. ‘intuitive’ is one of the key words here, often associated with UX design, the word needs to be stripped down to its core and reappropriated to the rest of design.
To communicate effectively, you must follow the rules of functionality to the highest degree; not limited to the sole function of the design/object, but rather the large scope function of effective communication.
In essence, you have to understand what you are trying to communicate with your design and blend that with the literal/physical function of the design.
Eg. You are designing a chair, you want to ‘Communicate’ that “this is an inviting, comfortable and warm chair to sit on” or maybe more simply that “this is something you can sit on”, you must blend that communication with the ‘Function’ of an object creating a shape that has the capability to [comfortably] sustain human weight, while adhering to the principles listed on the ‘Communication x Functionality’ tower.
By focusing on these principles, the object in question (chair) begins to naturally communicate its own function to potential ‘sitters’. Now if we take this concept and expand on it, we begin to question the stiffness of the world around us, ask yourself, if you weren’t told the function of particular objects around you, and you had never seen or associated with something similar, would the object/design communicate its function to you? After doing this, I realised I would probably use my kettle as an oversized water bottle, my toaster as a paper holder and my chopping board as a lap-to-laptop intermediary. Ridiculous, I know. Things that stand out to me as able to effectively communicate their own uses are: An open box, cups and bowls (in the sense of anything can be contained within, not just food or liquids).
Design today seems to pick and choose from the words listed on the ‘Communication x Functionality’ tower. I am sure your phone was pretty self explanatory to use, likely because you understand the concept of a phone, so the device doesn’t have much to communicate to you, because of this phone companies will focus on usability and maybe user-friendliness. Regardless of this, your phone will still arrive with an instruction manual, check your box, there’s one in there. If its not in the box, it will be in the form of a digital tutorial once you power the device on. Where am I leading to with this?
Good design, doesn’t need an instruction manual.
Correct design, doesn’t need a description.
Instruction manuals have killed our creativity and blocked our relationship & understanding with and of nature.
When was the last time nature explained to you the function of anything or the reason for anything she does? It’s we humans who try to squeeze meaning and definition out of everything.
Humans have been told, through time, by descriptions, what is what, and what it’s for. Let the design/object speak, and let the individual decide. Only then will we see our creativity flourish, and our relationship to nature heal.
There are also natural economic benefits to approaching design this way, but I’ll leave the maths up to someone else. :)
The flaws of this [natural] world rely on the [human-made] world as it was designed.
We as creators have mislead the world.
We created to satisfy specific areas on the ‘Communication x Functionality’ tower. Ultimately failing to take into account the big picture.
I am not saying lets immediately redesign the world, but I do want to encourage you to look at design differently, start small with ‘less complex’ designs/objects, and see where it takes us.
Available on Medium
Contact Me: Email | Instagram | Linkedin | The Dots