I'm halfway through reading this and, and so far, the main argument I'm seeing amounts to this: the use of visual art and attention to design is increasing. Making use of artistry in your products or caring about attractive design is infantilization, since kids also happen to potentially find the art and design nice looking because it's known that kids like pictures and color (and adults should like something else?). He mentions that making things less offputting to use is infantilization.
Does this apply to cars as well? Does adding design elements and any sort of color for reasons other than making it more aerodynamic or road safe equate to infantilization? Does using an automatic over a manual? Does using an auto-starting engine over a wind up engine? Does using a car over your own two legs?
I also find the argument that flat design is childish bizarre. I hate flat design, but it's not any more or less childish than what preceded it. Things can actually be more abstract with heavy reliance on text-only elements and icons without immediately apparent meaning, but the author seems to think that's infantilization, and what preceded was also meant for children, and absolutely anything other than what the status quo was in some undefined point in time is too infantilized.
It seems more that the author has a resistance to change, and framed it as everything new being too immature.
No, that's not the argument at all. "Art" and "design" do not imply infantilisation. No one accuses Dieter Rams of being infantile.
Infantilisation in design is specifically signified by cute animal mascots, large flat areas of primary and/or pastel colours, plain undemanding letter forms, use or implication of smiles and other emotional signifiers of friendliness or cuteness, use of relatable cartoons as primary graphics, and generally by aggressive simplification and removal of anything that requires some thought or effort to parse.
The Twitter and Amazon logos are infantile. The General Electric and IBM logos aren't. The Facebook "f" is more or less neutral, but the font chosen for the full "facebook" logotype wouldn't be out of place on the cover of an early reading book.
The point of infantilisation is that it signifies an experience of creativity without actually being creative. Instead of priming the imagination it just slides off it. It's all about locking you into a comfort zone instead of inspiring you to explore outside of it.
The Twitter and Amazon logos are infantile. The General Electric and IBM logos aren't. The Facebook "f" is more or less neutral, but the font chosen for the full "facebook" logotype wouldn't be out of place on the cover of an early reading book.
This seems very culture-specific. Hard, blocky typefaces like in the IBM logo don't scream mature to me--they just are what the main design preference of a bygone era was. The GE logo has squiggles that make it almost cartoonish, but it also clearly looks like something designed a hundred years ago. GE's ads 70 years ago were packed with color and cartoon characters[1], yet today they're held as an example of "mature" while flat design with solid text is immature.
I'm still unconvinced that this is anything more than "Old is good and mature. New design decisions are immature and bad for society." The same arguments were used against people reading books, people watching movies, rock and roll music, and so on. Within those realms, some things are steps back, but it's hard to say that they were regressive for humanity as a whole. Saying choosing a popular font is infantilizing is kind of stretching it. In 40 years, Amazon's current logo will make people think of grandpa's house and the good ol' days. 250 years ago, I'm sure someone was complaining about cursive replacing gothic blackletters being a sign of societal decline.
Of course there is no accounting for taste, but I don't think you can provide a rational argument why "large flat areas of primary and/or pastel colors" is particularly infantilizing.
2) yet, you're suddenly start being addressed as a child
3) you get used to it (even if you protest at first; or maybe the silent majority doesn't mind?)
4) because of 2&3, with time, you became infantile (which, certainly, could be an exaggeration)
5) apparently, this technique works quite well for "customer retention"--you feel "safe", for everything that is presented to you is cosy, cartoonish, kid-oriented staff
apparently, this technique works quite well for "customer retention"--you feel "safe", for everything that is presented to you is cosy, cartoonish, kid-oriented staff
It has the opposite effect on me. I feel like I'm being patronised. Maybe it's generational (I'm old).
I just don’t like the lack of menus and clarity of navigation paths. It seems as though there are generally 3 buttons presented for navigation and that many less popular features are hidden in an attempt to have as much empty billboard space as possible. Glad though that the endless scrolling trend has stopped.
Comments
I'm halfway through reading this and, and so far, the main argument I'm seeing amounts to this: the use of visual art and attention to design is increasing. Making use of artistry in your products or caring about attractive design is infantilization, since kids also happen to potentially find the art and design nice looking because it's known that kids like pictures and color (and adults should like something else?). He mentions that making things less offputting to use is infantilization.
Does this apply to cars as well? Does adding design elements and any sort of color for reasons other than making it more aerodynamic or road safe equate to infantilization? Does using an automatic over a manual? Does using an auto-starting engine over a wind up engine? Does using a car over your own two legs?
I also find the argument that flat design is childish bizarre. I hate flat design, but it's not any more or less childish than what preceded it. Things can actually be more abstract with heavy reliance on text-only elements and icons without immediately apparent meaning, but the author seems to think that's infantilization, and what preceded was also meant for children, and absolutely anything other than what the status quo was in some undefined point in time is too infantilized.
It seems more that the author has a resistance to change, and framed it as everything new being too immature.
No, that's not the argument at all. "Art" and "design" do not imply infantilisation. No one accuses Dieter Rams of being infantile.
Infantilisation in design is specifically signified by cute animal mascots, large flat areas of primary and/or pastel colours, plain undemanding letter forms, use or implication of smiles and other emotional signifiers of friendliness or cuteness, use of relatable cartoons as primary graphics, and generally by aggressive simplification and removal of anything that requires some thought or effort to parse.
The Twitter and Amazon logos are infantile. The General Electric and IBM logos aren't. The Facebook "f" is more or less neutral, but the font chosen for the full "facebook" logotype wouldn't be out of place on the cover of an early reading book.
The point of infantilisation is that it signifies an experience of creativity without actually being creative. Instead of priming the imagination it just slides off it. It's all about locking you into a comfort zone instead of inspiring you to explore outside of it.
This seems very culture-specific. Hard, blocky typefaces like in the IBM logo don't scream mature to me--they just are what the main design preference of a bygone era was. The GE logo has squiggles that make it almost cartoonish, but it also clearly looks like something designed a hundred years ago. GE's ads 70 years ago were packed with color and cartoon characters[1], yet today they're held as an example of "mature" while flat design with solid text is immature.
I'm still unconvinced that this is anything more than "Old is good and mature. New design decisions are immature and bad for society." The same arguments were used against people reading books, people watching movies, rock and roll music, and so on. Within those realms, some things are steps back, but it's hard to say that they were regressive for humanity as a whole. Saying choosing a popular font is infantilizing is kind of stretching it. In 40 years, Amazon's current logo will make people think of grandpa's house and the good ol' days. 250 years ago, I'm sure someone was complaining about cursive replacing gothic blackletters being a sign of societal decline.
[1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/05/91/9805918dd46921330298...
Of course there is no accounting for taste, but I don't think you can provide a rational argument why "large flat areas of primary and/or pastel colors" is particularly infantilizing.
I think her main grievance is:
1) you are not a child
2) yet, you're suddenly start being addressed as a child
3) you get used to it (even if you protest at first; or maybe the silent majority doesn't mind?)
4) because of 2&3, with time, you became infantile (which, certainly, could be an exaggeration)
5) apparently, this technique works quite well for "customer retention"--you feel "safe", for everything that is presented to you is cosy, cartoonish, kid-oriented staff
It has the opposite effect on me. I feel like I'm being patronised. Maybe it's generational (I'm old).
I think it's more a question of whether the "hooks" caught or not. Sometimes you're just different enough from target model that it backfires.
I just don’t like the lack of menus and clarity of navigation paths. It seems as though there are generally 3 buttons presented for navigation and that many less popular features are hidden in an attempt to have as much empty billboard space as possible. Glad though that the endless scrolling trend has stopped.