I think this is a fair statement: if a solution is highly complicated, it is a poor design.
Sweeping generalization, I know.
I am thinking about some systems that are being implemented in an organization. Highly complicated systems. I am also thinking about conversations I’ve had with designers over the years: all kinds of designers — landscape architects, graphic designers, work-process designers, information designers, industrial designers, software designers.
What is it that lets you know you are on the right track, when you are designing something? Ease. If the design gets kludgey, you’re in trouble.
It is somewhat similar in spirit to a workaround, only without the grace. A kludge is often used to change the behavior of a system after it is finished, without having to make fundamental changes.
Okay, so here I am, looking at some infrastructure systems that are being proposed and cringing at the inelegance. Were the original infrastructure designs a crock? Undoubtedly.
But trying to hack without unravelling the thread, without examining the history/purposes of the original solutions is a losing proposition.
Gah!
Complex system alterations (and resulting processes) are bound to be inefficient, inelegant, and even unfathomable.
I’m dogged by chaotic “design.” It makes me obsessive-compulsive — how can this be happening? Why doesn’t the initiator see the folly of her ways?
Pages and pages and pages of process docs. Inability to clearly explain intentions of the system changes. Disregard for ripple effect (or, rather, a plan to move forward and then figure out the ripple effects later). It makes me believe there is a fundamental flaw in the vision.
Can I, as a designer, call “bad design” on a project outside of my own field, based on some kind of universal principle of thoughtful, elegant, optimal design?
