Sat
May 31
2008
Minimalism can’t always be applied as a style. It can, however, always be applied as an ethos.
Some people have described my design aesthetic as minimalist. Although I understand how my designs can come off this way, I suggest that minimalism should be an ethos rather than an aesthetic.
For the sake of this paragraph, let’s accept minimalism as an aesthetic. As an aesthetic, it is a visual style, and we have a responsibility to make sure that the style fits the project. This is part of the responsibility of direction. Therefore, we must carefully consider that the minimalist theme is appropriate to the purpose of the website, the audience, and the client. This attitude applies not only to minimalist styles, but to any other genre, including—but not limited to—grunge, dark, Web-2.0, illustration, etc. From this, it follows that the grunge look probably isn’t appropriate for a leading software company, and cartoons probably aren’t appropriate for a big law firm.
Similarly, the minimalist aesthetic must be carefully considered and applied such that the outcome fits the cause. Can you imagine Swiss layout and typography applied to a 70s-vintage Van Halen album cover?
Yeah, it doesn’t work.
I’m not going to contradict myself and suggest that the above isn’t true. We need to pay attention to the visual direction of our work and ensure that it not only delivers the proper message, but one that is cohesive with the rest of the brand. But here’s the catch: the minimalist aesthetic is improper for certain projects.
This is the problem with approaching minimalism as an aesthetic. No doubt fueled by the numerous web trend galleries (I refuse to call them ‘inspirational galleries’), we tend to associate minimalism with well-organized layouts, abundant whitespace, and perhaps even the abundance of white itself. This in itself isn’t incorrect, as many of these visual properties are the byproduct of the minimalist approach to design.
However, it’s dangerous to lock ourselves into the mindset that minimalism is an end, rather than the means to an end.
For better or for worse, not all our designs will look über-clean with the requisite amounts of whitespace to make Brockmann shed a tear.
Let’s take CNN or The New York Times. Minimalist aesthetic? Hardly. But, considering they’re news sites, I don’t expect them to successfully pull it off. To reduce these designs to the stereotypical minimalist style would sacrifice content and usability. That would be an improper application of style—inefficient, ill-advised, ill-fated, and just plain wrong.
However, although they don’t adhere to the stereotypical aesthetic, they do adhere to the minimalist ethos.
Don’t need this element? Get rid of it. Calculate exactly what is necessary, and apply each element in a manner that does not dilute the purpose and ideas they represent. It’s a deliberate approach that requires a reductionist mindset.
Every visual element must have a calculated purpose. Whether an element exists for ‘rational’ purposes of highlighting a feature or for ‘less rational’ purposes of adding ambiance or whimsy to the overall aesthetic, it cannot exist simply because you want it to. Its purpose must be weighed against other elements that contribute or cancel. For example, if all that’s necessary to indicate a hyperlink is different text color and an underline, it would be superfluous to add bold italics, background color, and a different font. As designers, we should use elements that add value to our designs and omit those that don’t.
The important thing is to accept that we shouldn’t make something minimalist for the sake of style, but for the sake of improving the user experience. Every bit of extra information you include detracts from the most important information. In a time-crunched world where people have learned to decipher the goods from the junk, we need to make sure that every idea we communicate is pure gold.
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Your website:
Your comment:
Leon P
Fri, Aug 29, 2008
That’s interesting. I guess you’re saying that the minimalist aesthetic = Swiss – style web typography (12px helvetica/arial, grid layout, photography as opposed to illustration, black on white with a conservative dosage of bright colour, e.g. your own and Vinh’s sites).
You don’t see this aesthetic in its pure form outside of blogs, I guess because its aim is to remove any sense of character from the product (I don’t mean that pejoratively, by the way!), and only a designer would want to do that.
But is the NY Times really an example of minimalist design? There’s a lot going on on that front page! It’s more a case of organising a lot of content really well rather than applying a minimalist ethos. Isn’t it just Swiss – style with serifs?
Take Vinh’s Yahoo mock-up. It looks great, but Google has already won this battle by being minimalist: no grids or fancy typography, just a big search box slap bang in the middle of the page that screams ‘we do search’. Everything spins off from that.
Permalink
Dickson Fong
Fri, Aug 29, 2008
Leon: Thanks for commenting! I don’t think the minimalist aesthetic = Swiss style. That was really more for sake of (stereotypical) example, as I think that something can be minimalist regardless of its typography, layout, and motif as long as it adheres to the reductionist mindset of not decorating for the sake of decorating.
The NY Times website is an interesting example because it looks absolutely jam-packed full of info, so at first glance, it doesn’t seem minimalist at all. However, that’s simply the result of what it is — it’s a news site. However, it does so while sticking to the absolute basics. Only four colors are used to differentiate text, and content is separated either by single-line or double-line borders.
Compare nytimes.com against msnbc.com.
Both sites are very good. To be honest, I think the msnbc site trumps every other news site out there, but I don’t think it’s minimalist at all. They have extra gradients, extra gloss, extra ‘lickable’ icons. None of it is bad — overall, I think the execution is excellent. But they could’ve gotten 95% of that excellence with simpler interface elements.
Your thoughts?
Permalink
Leon P
Sat, Aug 30, 2008
Morning Dickson,
Yeah, I think I get your point — something doesn’t have to look minimalist in order to be minimalist (and looking stereotypically minimalist = looking Swiss).
I also take your point re the typography both sites employ (msnbc looks pretty similar to NY Times give or take a bit of eye candy); I also like the fact they both use a completely conventional blue to indicate links.
My ‘gripe’ is with the amount of stuff on the page, which isn’t ‘reductionist’ (even if the site isn’t ornamental). Vinh obviously does a spectacular job of organising a lot of content, but wouldn’t a minimalist ethos suggest reorganising and removing some information? I mean - who is going to reach that ‘Automobiles’ link right at the bottom of the page?
Not only is the page hard to scan, but there are some pretty small, hard – to – read fonts in there.
I know it’s a news site, but it looks like it’s trying to mimic print rather than adapt to a new medium.
Ta, Leon
Permalink
Dickson Fong
Mon, Sep 1, 2008
Leon: I guess ‘reductionist’ is relative. Although we can argue that there’s a lot of content that can be removed from the front pages of NY Times and msnbc, I suspect a lot if has to do with product management, editorial, and SEO reasons.
Interesting point. Although I can’t speak on Khoi’s behalf, I’m inclined to believe that this was a conscious decision. So much of the NY Times brand is invested in its print material that the brand may become diluted if its website spun off in its own direction. In this case, the tradeoff may have been to sacrifice some of the benefits of web media to preserve a consistent identity. However, that in itself is a discussion worthy of a separate blog post. Thanks for bringing it up. :)
Permalink