Issue
Article
Vol.30 No.2, April 1998
Article
Issue
Issue |
Article |
Vol.30 No.2, April 1998 |
Article |
Issue |
In the course of both learning and applying the techniques of visual design, I have been struck by the degree to which the average person is capable of judging whether or not a particular design is pleasing, but incapable of describing in detail what drives this decision. Design courses teach basic principles of visual design, and individuals well trained in this discipline can provide explanations in terms such as harmony, contrast, balance, and alignment. Further, the same basic principles can be extended to other design domains, such as architecture or product design. But upon what basis are these principles derived? One possible explanation relates to the constraints of both the physical world and the design of our perceptual systems.
The natural world is filled with diversity. One million species of animals, three hundred thousand species of plants, and over three thousand types of minerals have been identified, with more being added regularly (Lapedes, 1977). To the casual observer, nature appears limitless in its ability to create and modify the shape of its creations. Upon closer examination, however, this myriad of forms is in fact constructed from a limited number of relatively simple shapes, determined by the combination of a number of constraints. The patterns and forms employed by nature are restricted by the constraints of physical space, the relations between area and volume, and the need to minimize resource consumption (Stevens, 1974).
D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form (1942) is a classic account of the way things grow and the shapes they take. In this work, Thompson examines an array of physical constraints that explain the necessary size of elephants and ants, as well as the spiral, rather than cylindrical, shape of animal horns. Stevens' Patterns in Nature (1974) supplements and extends Thompson's work to include patterns of many inanimate as well as animate forms, showing that nature favors combinations of spirals, meanders, branching and three-way joints.
Consider, by way of example, three separate points in space. Of the infinite number of ways these points might be connected together, a configuration that uses connecting lines separated by 120° angles uses the least amount of material. Such economical three-way junctions of 120° angles are found widely in nature. Soap bubbles, which form minimum surfaces that keep the least possible surface area between them, join together with 120° angles between them. Bees build hexagonal cells not because of some innate knowledge of geometry but because, given the constraints of physical space, this configuration permits using the least amount of wax to store the greatest amount of honey while expending the least amount of energy. Cracks in mud, the shape of an insect's compound eye, and the joints between the plates of a tortoise shell are further examples of this ubiquitous phenomenon.
The main point here is that the structure of space influences the shapes of all things. Because of spatial structure, the possible number of shapes is limited. In showing that there are other spaces in which patterns and forms differ from our own, Einstein (1920) helped drive home the notion that objects assume the shapes they do because of the way space constrains our world. He showed that the forms and patterns in our own space would differ from those in other spaces, such as the space of atomic particles or at the scale of the universe as a whole. Because our perceptual systems are adapted to the space in which we live, these other spaces cannot be perceived directly, although they can be described mathematically.
How these various shapes and patterns actually come into being can be attributed to several factors. The examples above suggest that things evolve to their fittest form; a notion applicable to most living things in the environment. A second notion involves the principle that things tend toward configurations of least energy, be it the least motion or the closest fit.
Regardless of why patterns and shapes occur as they do, it is apparent that the world is in fact highly structured. Much of what at first glance appears to be random and different in design is in fact made up of similar basic shapes. Species evolving in an environment would benefit from perceptual systems that reliably recover these environmental regularities. Because the natural world is made up of objects whose shapes are determined by the constraints of physical space, the process of visual perception would be simplified if the information provided by these constraints were available in the perceptual stimulus and detected by the visual system. The study of the recovery of this information has been the focus of investigation from a variety of perspectives.
The Gestalt psychologists were interested in the recovery of structure in terms of perceptual organization. They proposed "laws of organization" that describe what perception would be given certain stimulus conditions; simplicity, similarity, nearness and good continuation are well known examples. Gibson's (1979) ecological approach provides a more recent example of the search for environmental constraints on visual perception.
What all this implies is that the elements of good design are an innate part of the physical and natural world; the same spiral shape can be seen in seashells, animal horns, and flowing water. Over the centuries, mankind has abstracted these basic principles and applied them to the design of artifacts; the same use of simple lines defines both Shaker architecture and Bauhaus furniture. However, little thought has been given as to why these elemental topics taught in design courses -- line, form, shape -- serve as the building blocks of all design. I propose that the constraints of our perceptual systems and the world around us determine the basic elements. Those trained in the visual arts can articulate these structures since they've been trained in their abstract vocabulary. However, even those without training are imbued with the innate ability to discern these design differences, thanks to evolution and physics. It appears that the notion of being able to "know good design when I see it" has a stronger element of truth in it than has been previously thought.
Einstein, A. (1920). Relativity: The special and general theory. A popular exposition. London.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Lapedes, D. (1977). McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, P. S. (1974). Patterns in nature. Boston: Atlantic-Little, Brown.
Thompson, D'Arcy. (1942). On growth and form. Cambridge, England: The University Press.
Frank M. Marchak is Principal Human Factors Engineer at TASC in Reading, Massachusetts, where he leads human-computer interaction design and usability engineering efforts for government and commercial clients. He received the Ph.D. degree in Experimental Psychology from Dartmouth College and the A.B. degree in psychology from Muhlenberg College.
Frank M. Marchak
TASC
55 Walkers Brook Drive
Reading, MA 01867, USA
FMMarchak@smtpgate.read.tasc.com
Visual Interaction Design is a Special Interest Area of SIGCHI focusing on the visual aspects of interaction in interface design. The goals of the Visual Interaction Design Special Interest Area are to act as a focal point for visual interaction design interest within SIGCHI, to advance visual interaction design as an integral component of HCI, and to integrate visual interaction design with the rest of SIGCHI.
To contribute information to this column, send email to fmmarchak@tasc.com or sford@elab.com, or write to Frank M. Marchak, TASC, 55 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, MA 01867, U.S.A. or Shannon Ford, E-Lab LLC, 213 West Institute Place, Suite 509, Chicago, IL 60610 U.S.A.
To subscribe to the Visual Interaction Design ListServ group, send email to LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU with the single line:
subscribe VISUAL-L <your name>
in the body. To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address with the single line:
signoff VISUAL-L
in the body. To communicate with members of the Visual Interaction Design community, send email to visual-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu.
You can also access the list via bboard: internet.computing.visual-l
Issue |
Article |
Vol.30 No.2, April 1998 |
Article |
Issue |