Flat Design
Out of context: Reply #67
- Started
- Last post
- 180 Responses
- d_rek0
@pig
Haha! That was pretty much my college experience. All theory. I remember an instructor explicitly telling our class that he was "Not here to teach us how to use software". Which was fine. I was probably more fluent with the tools of the trade at the time than he was. But there were definitely students that were not and I saw there 'formal' education lacking because they had difficulty executing ideas.
And I would even argue that a lot of the 'theory' that was taught in college was highly dubious at best. My design program was primarily built up around Bauhaus + Paul Rand theory of 'process' and exploration, with a little chance methodologies thrown in just to fuck with people.
I have found that very little of that actual theory I was taught in design school has been highly effective or even applicable in my professional career thus far. Which makes me question the usefulness of such instruction.
Anyway, I am not opposed to 'flat design'. I actually think windows8 is rather beautiful in it's simplicity, and that flatter UI experiences generally have a tighter focus on actual interaction design and not just pretty UI.
- I did like Rand's line on design being purely about shape, line, colour, form. Content/context should be taught separately.pig
- Shape, Line, Colour, Form are not exlusive to Rand though.d_rek
- Those are basic principles of any formal art education... covered in usually the most basic classes.d_rek
- not basic, but foundation classesd_rek
- Rand promoted rationale in design process more than anythingd_rek
- I just like how he differentiated from actually designing vs. it's context. Students (like me) can get lost in context very easily.pig