Simplicity may put too much control in the hands of designers. Which is sometimes ok, because we’ve hidden a lot of tedium and the internal structure (the machinery). But if we make everything simple, we’ll end up de-skilling users by only giving them the lowest common denominator in their products. Imagine if all cameras were point-and-shoot!
Elegance removes us from this trap. An elegant design contains the necessary, essential, and occasional features in a way that doesn’t impinge upon any of their uses, revealing and hiding them as necessary. Shaker furniture springs to mind, as do rolltop desks, Leatherman tools, and TiVo.
Nineteenth-century Unitarian minister William Henry Channing puts it best, in what could be The Designer’s Creed:
To live content with small means; to seek elegance rather than luxury, and refinement rather than fashion; to be worthy, not respectable, and wealthy, not rich; to listen to stars and birds, babes and sages, with open heart; to study hard; to think quietly, act frankly, talk gently, await occasions, hurry never; in a word, to let the spiritual, unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common–this is my symphony.
May all our designs (the common) be refined, worthy, wealthy, and, yes, elegant.
Dan Saffer "Strive for Elegance, Not Simplicity," Adaptive Path Blog, 11 Dec 2006 »http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2006/12/11/strive-for-elegance-not-simplicity/
