Descartes’ “Clear and Distinct” Principle Applied to Digital Design
Like any art form, design has its own schools of thought that champion different values. For instance, the 20th century German design school “Bauhaus” (‘building house’) places simplicity, functionality, and the harmony between form and function above all else. A core pillar of this school of thought is that “form follows function”. It is the idea that the design of an object should be influenced solely by its intended function or purpose. So, one should never design an object that is visually attractive but difficult to use. That would conflict with their philosophy prioritizing utility over unnecessary embellishment.
But I could not help but ask myself, “What exactly does it mean to have something’s form follow its function? How do we even begin to determine what form best fits something’s function?”
Consider a scenario in which you’re tasked with designing a calculator. Seems straightforward, doesn’t it? Just a series of buttons ranging from 0 to 9, various operators, all displayed on a physical platform with an output screen. You can design something like the Texas Instrument TI-108, a calculator countless of elementary school kids (I included) have used to carry out basic division and multiplication.
It’s colorful — that fact is undeniable. Large, rectangular buttons makes input easy and accessible, and the contrasting red and white buttons makes mispressing a button almost impossible. Above everything else is a bright blue coating that makes the instrument stand out. Maybe kids were misplacing these calculators in the classrooms?? I need some more time to think about this one.
Now, let’s look at another design.
Much more restrained in character, the ET66 calculator from the German electronics company Braun exhibits a level of care that is unseen in the TI-108. The cohesion of the device is evident from the outset. Its black plastic casing creates a discreet and non-distracting presence. The operator keys’ subtle shifts in color — from green on top to brown on the sides — both maintain the device’s dark aesthetics while drawing a clear distinction from the black numerical keys. Finally, the design intuitively highlights the “=” operator button in bright yellow, as it is the final button that a user presses in a calculation. This thoughtful color scheme not only enhances the calculator’s aesthetics but also mirrors the logical progression of mathematical operations, seamlessly integrating form with function.
Another instance of the Braun ET66’s attention to detail is exhibited in the numerical keys’ font choice and their placement on the circular buttons. The numbers 0–9 on the ET66 are straight and legible, whereas they are compressed on the TI-108. While a small detail, the subtle variation in button design creates two entirely different user experiences (UX). Arguably, the TI-108’s stylized buttons are form focused, rather than function focused. By compressing the numerical numbers in height, certain numbers like “8” and “5” are rendered almost indistinguishable and leads to confusion for the end user. Positioning the numbers in the top left corner of the rectangular buttons also fails to utilize the available space effectively, resulting in an excessive amount of unused and vacant area. By contrast, ET66’s UX is designed to be more precise and friendly. Standard sized numerical numbers, placed in the center of the buttons, make it easy for the end user to navigate the user interface (UI). Smooth, convex buttons create a precise tactile feedback that invites fingers’ touch. A half-inch gap between each button also reduces the likelihood of mispressing another button. Ultimately, these minor details of the ET66 explify a design philosophy centered on purpose, where every element is intentional and thoughtful, that creates exceptional user experiences.
At this point, you may argue that preference for one design over another is entirely subjective. To say objectively that one design is superior is invalid, as people’s tastes are different. I’m not here to argue that the ET66 is better than the TI-108, or that the chair I’m sitting on is better than the one you are sitting on. My goal is to simply demonstrate to you that when designs are done well, they prove themselves to be irrefutable. That any other form of the function would be ineffective and incoherent. This leads me to a 17th century philosophical idea put forth by the French philosopher René Descartes.
In his “Meditations on First Philosophy,” Descartes explores the idea of finding truths about the world independently of sensory experience, which he believes has misled him in all of his knowledge. For example, he knows a piece of wax to be cold and solid, but once it heats up, it changes from solid to liquid. So, he does not truly know what the nature of wax is, and can no longer rely on sensory knowledge to find out. Descartes argues that to avoid such errors, knowledge must come from what is “clear and distinct” to the intuition. In other words, something is only truly known if it is inherently obvious and beyond logical doubt. A simple example of something that is logically obvious is mathematics. The equation “2+2 = 4” is so obvious to our minds that any answer other than 4 is deeply incoherent. Similarly, if we take the idea of a valley away from the idea of a mountain, it is equally incomprehensible to us. Although Descartes’ principle is rooted in epistemology, it can apply to design just as well as knowledge. When every aspect of a design — from functionality and usability to the way it addresses its intended purpose — is logically sound and intuitive, its superiority is self-evident. This is why I think the German Bauhaus’s minimalist, “less is more” design philosophy has endured to this day. Because any alternatives against it will appear less compelling or flawed by comparison.
In conclusion, Descartes’ “clear perception” principle should be kept in the back of every designers’ minds regardless of if we create something that will be used by hundreds or millions of end users. A good piece of design will make everyone’s lives easier and more efficient, and a bad one will create many unnecessary difficulties. Let’s create good designs.
