Design Classics: Oldies but Goodies
If you could design a car right now from scratch, that could look any way you wanted, any shape or design, what would it look like? No matter what crazy ideas you started out with, chances are in the end the best design you would come up with would look remarkably similar to the ones we already have.
More often than not, the designs of everyday items that we take for granted – from soy sauce bottles to desk lamps – were determined years ago for a variety of reasons. Phaidon Design Classics recently released a book of 999 examples of everyday objects that have lasted the test of time from barrel police whistles to iPods. The 999 objects were picked by a panel of experts – architects, artists, curators, critics, academics – who focused on innovation and beauty, but also influence and timelessness. The focus is on design that is truly classic.
What makes a design classic? It’s not always obvious – sleek design is nice, sure, but some of the sleekest looking things never stuck around. The classic desk lamp with a one-bulb lamp and a long jointed and bent body, which may not look like much, remains a staple in offices even now – though it was designed 60 years ago. Super 8 tapes seemed super fancy at the time, but the VHS lasted far longer.
Simplicity is the key to making a good design a classic design. Lots of different kinds of MP3 players, with varying degrees of simplicity, came out around the same time, but once the iPod was released it became the clear winner. Why should all the other MP3 players stick with outdated design, like buttons and system that worked for old walkmans, when there’s something simpler and infinitely better? The iPod is the most commonly cited recent example of design that is being created right now that may stand the test of time, as new technology copies its simple and beautiful design.
Some designs have lasted for centuries, despite the onslaught of new technology and new inventions. How this came about can be obvious in many cases: scissors are scissors because they work. Two knives were probably better than one and someone thought, gee, what if we put the two knives together. And even if we created left-handed scissors (eventually) they’re still scissors. But in some cases, the series of circumstances that created a design didn’t really create the most functional object ever. For example, the position of the letters on the keyboard I’m typing on is not convenient. It is difficult to reach the right letters quickly and effectively, so why would someone design an ineffective and slow keyboard? And why would that design stick around for decades?
The first typewriter keyboard was built with the keys in alphabetical order, but the machines often jumbled and broke. In the early days of keyboards, the typing was done by long rods connected to the keys. Pressing a key, meant a rod swung up and hit the paper. But if rods were too close together when pressed they would often clash into each other, causing problems. C.L. Sholes, then, decided to place commonly used letters (like TH) at safe distances so that their rods didn’t not clash into each other.
When computers came along, there was no longer any rods or need for the keys to be spaced as they are, but why change what people are use to typing on, forcing them to relearn the locations of letters?
New versions of keyboards — from vertical keyboards that allow you to type with your hands straight up and down, to keyboards that proclaim higher efficiency of letter placement, allowing typists to type faster — have failed to catch on. Not because they aren’t better designs, but because this is the way it’s always been. Path dependence like this plays a big role in the design of many things – things we never even think could be planned or designed better than they are now, like roads.
Driving on the left side of the road causes less accidents. The majority of people are right handed and when presented with an obstacle in the road, statistics suggest that they veer to the left. In countries where cars drive on the left, this leads the driver into the (relatively) safe shoulder or brush, but in the US veering to the left leads a driver into oncoming traffic.
Why, then, doesn’t the US switch to driving on the left side of the road? Because the accidents that would be caused by the change and the confusion around it would be far greater than those accidents that could be avoided.
How things have always been and what has lead us to our current point, then, dictates how things will continue to be as opposed to how they could be best. Many classic and past designs are even guiding and inspiring design right now (in both good and bad ways) without us even necessarily realizing it or knowing which designs are sending us which way.
>Written by d/visible contributor Kelly Dunleavy.
