Form versus function has been a hotly debated subject in every modern product and device. Unfortunately, the engineers who are responsible with the creation and existence of said products typically and half-justifiably plant themselves alongside the “function first” position. In fact, as I state this, many of you are clenching fists, re-reading phrases and words to catch misplaced arguments, and willing to jump at any opportunity to virtually strangle me. I, of course, stand by my position: form OVER function. To try and control your mind and steer it towards my biased viewpoint, I will try and be as objective and concise as I can with specific examples in the industry.

I’ve listed five arguments (in order of what I think helps explain my viewpoint) of why the actual design of a product should precede function. Granted, this assumes that the specific functional objectives and goals of the product have been set in place, which is typically one of the first steps towards the formation of a product. A need in society must be fulfilled by the function of the device. Let us continue.

Form Over Function

1) Form accelerates function.

Much of the progress in functionality in the tech community of today is based on fulfilling the need created by ever-changing forms. Arguably the greatest challenge within the technological realm is to reduce, minimize, and mobilize our technology. The need to make consumer electronics smaller and slimmer is an aspect of form (i.e. thin and lightweight laptops). To mobilize technology such as communications is an aspect of form (i.e. portable telephone). To realize these needs, functionality is specifically developed with the focus of enclosing it in the required form factor. Without the need to make smaller and mobile form factors, advances in technology would be at a halt. Therefore, form accelerates function.

One of my favourite examples of a corporation pushing limits of everything form-related (including CEO scandals) is Samsung and their dedication (along with heavy marketing pushes) to create the world’s _____ (choose from: first, best, smallest, lightest, slimmest, largest, thinnest) device. My second example of a company which I obviously cannot ignore, is Apple. Steve Jobs and Co. felt the need to produce a laptop of the slimmest proportions. To fulfill this need, Intel stepped up to the plate to offer a fantastic solution, specifically accelerating the introduction and production of a reduced Core 2 Duo (mostly done by reducing its surrounding platform and chipsets). The goal of fitting the technology in a specific form accelerated technology.

2) Functionality is predictable. Form is not.

Linearity in this case, means that functionality progresses at a predictable place. Within the next few years, we KNOW what is in the pipelines and roadmaps of bleeding-edge technology. We know that Verizon and AT&T will be rolling out plans for LTE in 2010 with their 700MHz spectrum purchase, we know Microsoft is pursuing their hobby/niche product with Surface, we know gaming might evolve even further than what the Nintendo Wii brought with Johnny Lee’s recent innovations with infrared cameras and dots, we know application/document sharing and collaboration through the cloud can only expand further, and we know user generated content and social networking is the next biggest … thing.

Form is a completely different story however. Form is a creativity-sink. Sometimes it works well (Apple’s minimalistic nature), and sometimes it doesn’t work to a product’s advantage (La Cie’s Porsche-designed external HDD – a BOX). In fact, predicting the “hawtness” of a device is one of the most difficult things to objectify. With the exception of size dimensions, even something as simple as a product’s colour can cause an audience to drool or gasp at gadgetry blasphemy. And this is no joke – the debate between piano black and matte black caused some people to purchase a PlayStation 3 over the Xbox 360 and vice versa (I prefer the former, by the way).

Because functionality is predictable, the time spent producing a commercial product should be heavily focused on design and aesthetic decisions, and fitting the functionality in the prescribed manner. This includes everything from exterior aesthetics, ergonomics, user-interface (hardware and software), packaging, and overall device presentation. Functionality is secondary to this, because what is capable is known and predicted; versus design and form-related decisions which tend to lead to long and heated debates with hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into research. In most cases, the money spent on these decisions pay off well.

A primary example is shown in which PMP players from China are functionally great, but lack in nearly every design aspect. These players (I have an MP4 player myself) play everything with codecs akin to VLC’s extremely long list. These mini devices even read text files, record sound clips, emulate games, and have a built-in speaker in a relatively small package. Yet, their user-interface is the most disgusting thing I’ve ever laid eyes on, laden with spelling mistakes, horribly designed menus, and god-awful colours (BRIGHT teal and pink?). Pressing their buttons produces a really loud clacky noise that can rip through even the loudest of dim-sum restaurants. Just pressing the buttons feel embarrassing in public places. I should also mention it comes with the biggest ugliest plastic encasing of earbuds ever, along with some weirdly coloured wiring. Not the greatest example of design in my book, nor the greatest success.

3) Form is non-sacrificial (ugh). Function can be sacrificed.

I have found that functionality strongly follows the law of diminishing returns. The capital required to enhance functionality in a product past a satisfactory benchmark, may not provide the relative same returns. Business decisions are thusly made.

For example, 3G felt like an actual strong requirement for the launch of the iPhone and it was predicted by the company and by the general public, because it made sense. Apple’s iPhone launched with EDGE connectivity and still resulted in a huge success. Why? EDGE speeds were satisfactory to its targeted audience. An increase to HSDPA speeds would have sacrificed battery life and potentially form factor for a small speed benefit and a higher price point – which would have actually deterred more customers.

The iPhone also presents a different form challenge – a smartphone without any physical buttons. This meant no tactility, loss of speed, and frustrated text users (a bulk of the market). Functionality is lost, because except for the side buttons and Home button, users are faced with the difficulty of adjusting and learning the iPhone’s virtual keypad. The result? Users were willing to sacrifice and spent time learning and getting used to the keypad in order to benefit from the form, usability, and sexiness of the device.

4) Functionality used to sell. Form currently sells.

Take HP - a company previously only known for printers and a weak display of computers, PDAs, and enterprise equipment. Within the last two years, HP performed a complete “revamp” of their consumer products, which was met with highly regarded praises and extremely strong sales. Their primary difference? Form. Their previous showcases of laptops were functionally great and complete with buttons and layouts for all the media content your eyes and ears could take. Why didn’t it sell? ELEVEN pounds and near 2-inch thick housings. Of course, the obvious argument lies in the fact that portable technology was still young and HP’s development was not as strong as other companies such as Asus and Dell. This point is proven moot when you consider how well their enterprise laptops sold (with the help of the Compaq acquisition) with a slimmer and well presented package. Again, functionality should have been sacrificed rather than form.

HP realized this and with their strength in development within the past few years, their product line presents some of the most consumer-savvy devices on the market today. This extends from their laptops/desktops to their recent movement into monitors, MediaSmart HDTVs, and digital media adapters. Their strategy presents a strong in-home presence with a united look and feel of HP products (piano black everything, which I’m extremely biased towards). Functionality was sacrificed (their monitors hold no defence against Samsung’s SyncMaster 2×6 series specs), but it proved to be a wise decision that helped their products flourish.

5) Passion is an extension of form.

You know those goosebumps you get when you first lay eyes on the Audi R8 (or its V12 TDI counterpart)? Or when you blackout from seeing an Aston Martin DBS in real life? What about the first time sliding that unlock button on Apple’s iPhone or turning on your brand new Asus U2 series laptop? Remember that awkward feeling you got looking at a Chumby or the time when you stumbled because of an ad of a beautiful gadget (and accompanying girl) from Samsung? Or even the disgust and frustration in its most extreme forms, looking at the RROD’ed lights on your Xbox 360. That is passion in its purest form. Design of a product sparks emotions of all kind, good and bad. It’s undeniable and that is the future we live in.

Recent movies have predicted what the future will look like with Audi’s extremist push (along with 18 new vehicle models in 8 years!) in iRobot, or Minority Report’s sexy multi-touch screens. Star Trek: Nemesis has even shown that half-spandex like material, might not even look so bad (not to mention the gorgeous NCC-1701-E). The reality is that we are often bewildered by visuals and by sights. Even the kinetic feeling of something as adrenaline-rushing as split second wins in Gran Turismo 5: Prologue races, is overshadowed by the beautiful visuals Polyphony was able to create. In the technology realm, form is what people are passionate about. Sure we gawk for a split second at the mind-crushing possibilities of multi-terabit-per-second speeds on our little smartphones of the future, but even that is something we can’t grasp and visualize. Functional ideas don’t uncontrollably leak and spew passion, culture, drool, and sweat. It’s the design and the form that we are naturally passionate towards.

Functionality Addendum:

There are (hopefully) no points in this article that state that functionality is not important. Functionality is important, but in many cases, the striking idea in a product comes from its form and design factors. There is, however, an idea that I cannot ignore.

1) Further enhancement of function empowers forms.

A prime example is with a simple idea of Visual Voicemail. Lead first by the Apple iPhone, it seemed like such a simple idea to actually choose and select which voicemail you want to hear. The technological capabilities have always been there, but this application was never developed and never really wanted by consumers, until the iPhone first showcased this feature. It is because of this functionality that sparked interest and essentially created a need that no one thought they needed prior to its launch.

No one ever thought enhanced visuals were needed for something proven like a TV. Yet there are already millions who’ve sworn allegiance never to watch anymore movies in SD. This functionality empowers new forms and new ideas.

Conclusion:

In reality, functionality and form presents a symbiotic relationship, one which each cannot live without the other. Now don’t go throwing out this article, just because I didn’t choose a side. I firmly stand planted on the fact that in this day and age, form must be stressed in every new product. It is form that accelerates function, it is form that sells in the marketplace, and it is form that people have a passion for. Well-thought and researched product designs are proving to be an essentiality with the entire technological industry presenting examples in nearly every case. Form needs to be prevalent over function.

Please leave me your thoughts/praises/and/or/flames!

Nathan Ng - 04/24/08

Tags: Aesthetics, Form, Function, User Interface

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.