27 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Because euphemisms like "undesign" and "contigency design" sell. ;o)

27 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Undesign sounds like a negative, though, doesn't it?

Do you need a designer to do undesign?

27 Jan 2003 | Urbanchords said...

"In fact sushi is generally more expensive per portion size than other, more complex foods."

Does it have to cost more to be "good design"?

27 Jan 2003 | JF said...

What bothers me about this whole "undesign" thing is that there is no such thing as undesign. Everything is designed. If "undesign" is meant to mean "stripped down, text-based, let the content shine" design, then how about giving it more credit than just slipping an "un" in front of design? Undesign discounts the design process -- a process that is very much alive with this sort of design.

27 Jan 2003 | Shane said...

I prefer the word "minimalistic". Undesign technically means "not design".

Maybe Liz was smitten with the tagline Kottke used in his logo...

27 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Does it have to cost more to be "good design"?

Good point, I definitely don't think so (was using that to try to make a point), though Frank Gehry might disagree with you.

27 Jan 2003 | Chris said...

Off topic: does anyone have QuickTimes of the Superbowl ads?

27 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

try www.aol.com/superbowlads click on the "Mac" link for quicktime.

27 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

All I can ever hope for is someone to look at my Web app and say, "Excellent use of negative space."

Or how about, "It's the little black dress of Web design. Classic, simple, sexy!"

Or succy design (succy for succinct).

Or maybe the 'un' stands for uniformity, or unity.

27 Jan 2003 | Chris said...

Thanks Derek! Got 'em.

27 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Here's a theory.

For most people, design (incorrectly) = graphic design, which for most (incorrectly) = frivilous decoration. So, naurally, a functional, lean, visual presentation can be seen as a lack of design.

Ironically, those most guilty if incorrectly assuming 'design' = graphic design are graphic designers.

28 Jan 2003 | Bob the mailman said...

It's sucking up to the A-list. "Lee-can't-get-laid.com" could call his site an undesign.....no one would notice, for sure Liz Bailey wouldn't write an article about it. "Useability" is the term. But even that is outdated. But anyone who links, quotes, worships Kottke makes me shudder. If he had anything of value to say, I might feel otherwise.

Blogging isn't about linking anymore, it's original content. Who cares what his design is or isn't?

28 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

bob is going postal.

simplistic, clean, japanese. The 60 and 70s were full of it. It needs to be created by people who know what theyre doing, otherwise it looks lopsided and deformed. What do they say, EK, about the 90 yr old japanese calligrapher who could render all of life in a single brushstroke? Im crazy about old japanese art and design. I love sushi. My first boyfriend was japanese. :-)

Dont defend it, no need to - just keep doing it.

28 Jan 2003 | Tommy H. said...

Jason Kottke has valuable things to say. He may talk a load of crap sometimes, but then so do John Gruber and Mark Pilgrim. I still read their work, respect their efforts and link to them.

Simplicity is bliss, not ignorance.

28 Jan 2003 | Tevis said...

I work in a large organization where I am the only graphic designer. I often see people try to make their own presentations or reports before they come to me wondering how to "make it look better."

They usually use eight fonts on a page, lots of different colors without regard to hue, value, and saturation and like to spread around lots of clip art to illustrate their content.

The non-aesthetically inclined people always seem to equate good design with complexity and I'm not sure why. For them, the concept of "undesign" really is lack of design.

However, I remove everything on a report cover except for a title (kerned properly and in a good typeface) they then love it. But they don't seem to learn the lesson.

I bet there's a Psychology Thesis to be done on this.

28 Jan 2003 | Jeremy said...

I agree with Tevis. I work for a company as a web desinger, but I do print work/advertising too. My boss sees clean, simple design as "technical," rather than "artistic." And since design is "artistic," that can't be what I'm doing.

28 Jan 2003 | COD said...

Knowledge leads to ability, knowledge and ability gives power, power leads to money. Designers, print or web, it doesn't matter, have always maintained their power by doing stuff the rest of us can't, and convinving us that we need it. However, the weblog stuff really isn't new. Anybody rememember 1996-97? The three C's of web design - content, community, commerce. Take a look at your typical weblog, its all about the 3 C's.

28 Jan 2003 | dmr said...

ramble ramble ramble...

Debates about Art and Design are interesting. I attend a fine arts college where many consider my work to be 'design' because I use substantial amouts of white and typographics as image. While Design is certainly a subset of Art, I wouldn't consider clean and minimal design anything deconstructive or negative. Undesign is a meaningless term.

De-design however, is something I see all the time. Clients come to our shop looking for a solution to an unexpressed problem. "Where is your content" we ask; "We don't have any content. Make us something pretty" they howl. Often they become turned off when we explain the merrits of good content AND good style, working in harmony.

None of us can deny the power of 'wow' and style, but without some good content fluff becomes dull and has no staying power (pop music?). Many in the fine art program at USF would like to think their art has meaning and is rich in content, but what good is content that is so abstract that no one understands it without a 10min period of articulation by the artist?

We live in a style culture, get used to it. Finding clients and PEOPLE in general who appreciate strong content is difficult.

28 Jan 2003 | dmr said...

One more point; the SvN crowd is non-typical I would think. Many of us find harmony between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. This puts us in a position to be highly aware of the visual (style) and structured, contextual (content). Most people are not in such a position.

People who can't appreciate simplicity, fuck 'em. I have had long debates with people about Apple, VW and others; if ya can't appreciate the one button mouse then ya can't talk about simplicity.

28 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

I work for one of the big four accounting firms (or is it big three this week? I can't keep track) Anyway, it's one of the things I'm always struggling with. Our clients inside the firm, and sometimes other designers in our group, always seem to subscribe to the "more is better" theory of design.

"Give us more. More fonts, more colors, more bevels and drop shadows.!"

There really seems to be a mindset that this so called "undesign" (or the clean, elegant display of content in a highly accessable form) is somehow less valuable than something big, bold and garish.

It's frustrating.

28 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

My response to "Give us more. More fonts, more colors, more bevels and drop shadows.!" (and the like) would be to give them how they want it, but also how I think it could be better. Then do some informal usability.

Is their goal for the user to understand quickly? Hm, I wonder which design would work best...

These people have to be shown the success of one type of design over another to come to a true understanding of the value of succinct design. Otherwise it is just one opinion against another, and they will win because they are the final decision makers. We can only document the risk.

Having said that, you probably don't want simple designs if your goal is to WOW people. Get them fired up; excited. But most of the communicating that business does would benefit more from simplicity.

28 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

While Design is certainly a subset of Art

I wouldn't call it a subset. GRAPHIC design is very closely related to art, with lots of overlap, but 'design' in general is really its own construct.

I think the debate in terms of what 'undesign' is revolves around visual design vs. visual decoration. People don't understand the two.

28 Jan 2003 | pscrivs said...

It's funny because I have been trying to design websites for the past 4 years and am never really satisfied with any of it...that was until I figured out I wasn't that good at adding a thousand different colors and images all over the place. I was better off select 3 to 4 colors and using the right words to emphasize the idea. Now with this discussion I am beginning to feel less like a non-designer and more like a web designer. I often have to tell myself that simplicity does not mean lack of beauty. And to the people who don't like the minimalistic approach, I really don't think they have tried to design that way. Because if they did they would see how much planning it actually takes to get a clean design down that emphasizes the content over the fluff.

28 Jan 2003 | f5 said...

While Design is certainly a subset of Art

Design certainly is not a subset of Art. Design is problem solving.

28 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

f5 said it much better than I did.

28 Jan 2003 | angmo said...

Art is just as much about problem solving as design is. The only diference is that with art you are solving your own problems, with design its about solving the clients.

29 Jan 2003 | MrBlank said...

I thought that if you randomly loaded 10 weblogs 9 of them would suck.

But seriously, I dont see the connection of weblogs affecting web design. Most blogs are by people who dont know what they are doing. They use a basic template that came with their publishing program and fill it with the same content as every other blog. Of course they will all look the same.

I think this simpler, more useable design is from the work of professionals who have successfully designed and managed huge interactive sites. Their hard work has proven that this design "trend" is working.

Bloggers throw up a simple design because its easy and already proven to be successful for their blog format. Kottke gives way too much credit to a bunch of amateurs.

29 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Kottke gives way too much credit to a bunch of amateurs.

That's what the web is. People self-publishing.

30 Jan 2003 | jazer said...

This is the ages-old style vs design debate. A stylist makes things pretty, a designer makes things work. My parents, even some friends, don't understand that I DESIGN webpages. 'But they're so simple,' they say.

Yes, exactly.

02 Feb 2003 | Adam Rice said...

There's a great quote that goes something like "I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." The point this makes about writing goes for design: it's easy to ramble on -- or clutter up. It's hard to pare down while keeping the essentials intact.

I'm just an interested layman when it comes to design, so I still have a ways to go.

06 Feb 2003 | Bruce Elrick said...

i like the idea of a clean, uncluttrered page - like the kottke sites out there - this is the way the web should go - and some major players are moving that way! look at Sun and Accenture, and so many more - even the bbc, homepage.

09 Feb 2003 | Woody Guthrie said...

Any darn fool can make something complex; it takes a genius to make something simple.

08 May 2003 | Rahid said...

Came by your site when looking for non-design stuff (or rubbish web design). Un design seems a slightly "airy fairy" term for "that which has been made with little or no care"
In music terminology, I have heard Pavement being described as "Un-Rock" i.e alternative yet not rock, which was an almost impossible concept in pre grunge days.
I don't think this is a style vs usability issue, more a by-product of slackism in general - and more of it the better as far as I'm concerned. Coporate design needs a kick up the arse!