In fact, the meaning behind the expression «good design» is really ambiguous, even if we leave aside the question of design definitions. Is good design akin to good cleaning? I mean, is it something about just putting things to their proper places and getting rid of noise? Or maybe it means being an artist, not a mere technician? Doesn’t good design also mean creating something that lasts, something people will talk about?

Let’s compare a propaganda poster and a railroad ticket. The goal of the poster is to persuade by conveying a clearly defined meaning. The goal of the ticket is simply to document. While the poster asks for emotional involvement and response, the ticket doesn’t ask for anything. As emotions rule our decisions, emotional experience is crucial for persuasive design. As emotions distract when the decision is already made or simply is not needed, usability becomes more important for other kinds of design.

My point is that on one pole, like with the poster, the form becomes the content and the emotional experience matters the most, while on another pole, like with the ticket, the content becomes the form and what really matters is pure usability. Both poles still can be called good design. But the one where meaning matters can also be good in another sense, as something people will talk about — as a social object, if we borrow the term from Hugh McLeod.

If we now compare our old friend propaganda poster with a dictionary instead of a railroad ticket, we see one more difference —obviously, it is the level of informational complexity. The more complex and structured the information, the less chances are left for emotional experience and the more is the need for usability. The design of complex information systems is rather engineering, and this is yet another pole of good design.

And finally, if we replace the dictionary with a novel full of complex ideas, we see one more dimension of good design: do not distract attention from the higher levels of perception and thinking. That’s why the design of a such a books is usually much drier than, say, the design of an annual report full of dry facts. And paradoxically, the design of an annual report has more chances of becoming a social object.

We can summarize the above said into four example poles of good design:

• Social objects (persuasive with simple meaning, intense but simple emotions, minimum of information)
• Usable objects (no need for persuasion, simple meaning, low emotions, low information)
• Complex information systems (simple meaning, low emotions, high volumes of information)
• Complex semantic systems (higher-level thinking, complex emotions and meaning)

It’s obvious that we can think of further combinations of parameters referring to yet another kinds of design. But the only one of them, namely social objects, can pretend to be a sort of an art, a special kind of design that lasts. Its distinctive features can also be used as the criteria for making a design more viral:

1. Easy emotional involvement.
2. Simple and unambiguous meaning.
3. The lowest possible volume and the best possible organization of the information to be conveyed.
4. The mechanism for response.

I am sure that those criteria may be helpful even in the cases when they can’t be fully met, i.e. with railroad tickets and dictionaries. By reducing complexity and adding emotional touch we still can get the results far above the ordinary. But don’t cherish illusions — don’t waste time trying to create ticket design that lasts, dictionary design that lasts, website design that lasts and so on. It won’t.

Now, back to the social object case — here is a bit of practical advice about the pre-design stage of work with it.

1. Get as much information as possible about the subject.
2. Ask yourself if you buy what you are selling to the reader. If not, don’t spend further time trying to make a social object out of it. Do the work, go to bath and forget about it.
3. Ask yourself what concrete physical action should be done by the readers after interacting with the social object you are building, how you can help them to do it, what arguments you can use do to persuade them to do it and so on.
4. If the meaning is not clear to you, consciously choose a clear meaning and stick to it.
5. Spend time searching for the ideas arising emotional response. Use creativity techniques like Catena to quickly generate ideas.
6. Reduce the text as much as possible if it depends on you. Organize as good as possible what is left.
7. Now go on to the design stage.

And after you finished, make sure your design gets not only to your portfolio, but also to the places where more people can see, comment and share it.

Why design typology? Just because sometimes it’s much easier to start a new work with a definite approach in mind — of course, if it will answer the client’s needs. With a typology all you have to do is to select the most appropriate style. It’s a much more effective way than trying alternative versions until it’s okay.

My main point is that the four most important style-defining aspects of graphic design are space, structure, form, and meaning.

1. Space

Design which starts with space is the one where objects don’t matter and everything is freely flying in what Malevich called «the white abyss». Despites Malevich’s pioneering role, I would prefer to illustrate this approach with Kandindsky’s work which is more expressive, complex, and fluid.

2. Structure

Structure-based design features a very ordered world. It’s what they call grid design, though technically grid is rather a particular case. At the extreme of such an approach, structure IS the only space, form and meaning. Mondrian’s work is the best illustration of it.

3. Form

Form is what dominated graphic design before the 1910s art revolution came, with secession as the extreme case. It doesn’t mean that this approach is now outdated, though you mostly won’t get there the feeling of «design per se» as with the first two approaches. Instead, you’ll get a piece of art, if you will be lucky enough — probably together with a lot of invisible work. For example, if you measure the rectangles in Cassandre’s «L’atlantique», you’ll find a lot of golden ratio there.

4. Meaning

Finally, there is the approach which don’t depend much on the first three factors. Instead, such a design just make sense. A play of images or words, a simple and clear thought appears there right from the first glance. This approach is often used in advertising:

By the way, we can tell that the latter two approaches are objectless and two former ones are related with objects — either physical or mental. A useful observation we’ll return to later.

So how do I use it?

To choose the approach that fits best, I have to answer to a few questions:

1. What’s the content? If it’s an auto parts catalog, the structure-based approach is more likely than anything else. If it’s an expensive wine, I better choose the form-based one. If there is a special point in being memorable, I’d start with the meaning (while we are speaking about wine, Gapingvoid shows us a good example of such an approach).
2. Who’s the audience? Again, select one of the four approaches that fits best.
3. What are the client’s requirements? Your choice can be obviously limited by a brand book or the client’s tastes.

Add a few more questions that are important in your case (you can use creative brief to find them). Then decide which style answers best to all of them.

But what if your case is complicated and the four styles are intersecting or just are not enough? In fact, we can take our typology to the next level of detail. After choosing the dominant approach, we can also choose a subdominant — a flavour from an opposite group (remember our remark about object-based ws objectless styles?). For example, if structure-based approach is the main one, we’ll flavour it with the form-based approach.

In such a way, I get not only a mean to classify graphic design samples, which also can be useful in some occasions, but also a working tool to deliberately direct my design approach. Hope it can be helpful to you, too. If you’ll use this tool or already have a similar one, I would be glad to hear about the results.

A great talk of David Carson at TED. By the way, I disagree with the title «grunge typographer».

But there are ghosts threatening a designer who doesn’t reject the temptation of self-expression. It’s hard to tell a good solution from a personally appealing but unrelated image. Where experienced designers manage to combine personal involvement with seeing through client’s eyes, not so experienced ones tend to lose balance.

How to solve this problem? Removing everything personal from a design doesn’t necessarily make it any better. Everybody knows what a tired design is. It’s much worse than an imbalanced one, because it’s depressed and bears bad energy other people feel.

I am sure there is a much better solution. Instead of excluding designer’s personal touch, we have to go further and make it more meaningful. The major part of design errors and weird inventions appear under the influence of snap subconscious impulses and then get explained and linked to some meaningful ideas. But what if we start from the end and get the ideas first?

One of the effective means of doing so is to get feedback from yourself before the work starts. There is a lot of tools and techniques for generating interesting ideas without sinking into the dirty design work. The first ones that come to mind are Random Stimulus and Paraphrasing. Besides the obvious positive effect of getting interesting ideas, they surely help a designer to bridge the initial distance, better understand the task and get really involved. Then, having a range of ideas, directions and meanings, it’s much more easier for a designer to avoid boring design and unleash her creative potential.

Another thing to remember during design work is the need to decipher any subconscious weird images that come to mind instead of blindly rejecting them or rashly injecting them to the work. A short delay on this stage will be repaid latter. That doesn’t mean we should explain everything we do, but on some inner level we have to know the reasons it’s there. Such a deciphering effort often brings a lot of creative ideas.

And finally, there are not merely tools, but also entire frameworks, like Six Thinking Hats for example. Using such a frameworks, you constantly direct your attention, avoiding procrastination and getting much better results in lesser time.

So, here it is — enjoy.

1. Design is a manifestation of the capacity of the human spirit to transcend its limitations. (George Nelson)
2. Designers who design like machines will be replaced by machines. It is not the digital but the intuitive, not the measurable but the poetic, not the mechanical but the sensual, which humanize design. (Katherine McCoy)
3. Design plays a central, not merely ornamental, part in the creation of meaning. (Derick de Kerchhore)
4. Design describes the processes of selecting shapes, sizes, materials and colours to establish the form of something that is to be made. The object can be a city or town, a building, a vehicle, a tool or any other object, a book, an advertisement or a stage set. Design is the activity which forms a major part of reality as we experience it. (Johnatan Pile)
5. Design is not an art or a science, a socio-cultural phenomenon or a business tool. It is an innovative process which uses information and expertise from all these sectors. It uses creativity first to analyse and synthesise the interactions between them and, secondly to offer appropriate and innovative responses (forms) which, in application, should go beyond the sum of each sector’s vision and capacity and yet remain recognisable and pertinent to them all. (A.M. Boutin — Liz Davis)
6. Design is the cardinal means by which human beings have long tried to modify their natural environment. Design, the act of putting constructs in an order, seems to be human destiny. (Richard Neutra)
7. In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness. (Antoine De Saint Exupery)
8. Design is a process of turning people’s ideas into forms. Transforming the invisible into the visible, design is also the operation of turning mental, social and spiritual entities into physical ones. Design is the process of the human creation of new realities. However, this assumes a thorough knowledge of the qualities and effects of the material world. Good design is the result of an excellent idea going into a good form, an excellent immaterial entity going into a good material one. Creating reality is always a synthetic activity, and the result must be beautiful. (Kenji Ekuan)
9. Design is everybody’s business: we live in it, we eat in it, we pray and play in it. When I say that design is everybody’s business, I don’t mean that design is a do-it-yourself job. I mean that it affects everybody, at all times, in our lives. Unless we gain a better understanding of design, we shall witness our environment getting steadily worse, in spite of the constant improvement of our machines and tools. (P.J.Grillo)
10. Good design keeps the user happy, the manufacturer in the black and the aesthete unoffended. (Raymond Loewy)
11. The word ‘design’ can mean either a weightless, metaphysical conception or a physical pattern. The opposite of design is chaos. (Buckminster Fuller)
12. The word design signifies so many different things: a process, a means of promoting sales, and a stage on the road to production. It enhances products, and sells them; it solves problems and conveys ideas; it is artistic and commercial, intellectual and physical. This many-sidedness &endash; or ambiguity and endash; is something we have to learn to live with, as a historically incontrovertible fact. (Frederique Huygen)
13. Design requires a constant remodelling of our ideas as it must adapt its language to new possibilities offered by new structural materials. (P.J.Grillo)
14. Industrial Design is a creative activity whose aim is to determine the formal qualities of objects produced by Industry. These formal qualities include the external features, but are principally those structural and functional relationships which convert a system to a coherent unity, both from the point of view of the producer and the user. Industrial Design extends to embrace all aspects of human environment which are conditioned by industrial production. (Thomas Maldonado)
15. Design, in its broader sense, is creation of systems for living. (Yoshida Mitsukuni)
16. Simplicity — a virtue so rare and essential in design, does not mean want or poverty. It does not mean the absence of any decor, or absolute nudity. It only means that the decor should belong intimately to the design proper, and that anything foreign to it should be taken away. Decor must be consistent and totally integrated with the whole design story. (P.J.Grillo)
17. Design must be meaningful. And «meaningful» replaces the semantically loaded noise of such expressions as «beautiful», «ugly», «cool», «cute», «disgusting», «realistic», «obscure», «abstract», and «nice», labels convenient to a bankrupt mind when confronted by Picasso’s Guernica, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater, Beethoven’s Eroica, Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du printemps, Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. In all of these we respond to that which has meaning. (Victor Papanek)
18. The design philosophy informing the concept of «The Humane Village» recognizes what individuals want in their daily lives; what they want to see and feel in their neighbourhoods, their homes and their workplaces; a sense of calm, permanence and timeless beauty, served but not dominated by the marvels of technology. Returning life to the pleasures of privacy and friendship in settings made to human scale. Building with foresight and restoring with care. Looking first to the needs and wishes of people. (Ben Park)
19. Design is the process, that turns ideas into products that deligts their users. (Andrew Summers)
20. Design is what you do, not what you’ve done. (Alan Fletcher)
21. Design is giving shape to man’s dream. (Kenji Ekvan)
22. Good design is the solution best adapted to necessity, but very superior to it. (André Breton)
23. Most think of design in terms of putting lipstick on a gorilla. (Dieter Rams)
24. A designer is an emerging synthesis of artist, inventor, mechanic, objective economist and evolutionary strategist . (Buckminster Fuller)
25. Design is the anti-thesis of accident. (Vernon Barber)
26. Good design is intelligence made visible. (Le Corbusier)

27th one is Webster’s. Just notice this line:

archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name.

Arhaic? Or maybe futuristic? At least, this is in what direction I’d like to move.

P.S. Another great resource on design definitions is Quotes on Design by Chris Coyier.