Design - The Demise of ‘Form Follows Function’

The author doesn't understand form or function too well and it's remarkable at how he equates moving towards more intuitive ways of doing things as the "The Demise of Form follows Function." Weird part is that it's in the New York Times.

To me, form follows function means no unnecessary ornamentation. This doesn't mean NO ornamentation, one of the things persistently misunderstood by engineers is that all ornamentation is frivolous. What it means is the ability to carefully consider and justify each design decision that you make and to not be mindless about your design.

I think the NY Times article had somewhat of a point. Sure, the original iPod needed to have a wheel and a screen and be easily held in your hands but it really could have looked like anything apart from that. The loosening of constraints upon design is at both liberating and slightly terrifying for those who believe in form follows function.

What many design critics such as the author are slow to realize is that the interface is part of the design, and it still follows the same principles, just in a new context.

For example, the interface of the iPod Shuffle is meant to be operated without looking, often while moving, hence the form has just one main button located in a stable stable position operated by squeezing instead of pushing. Even the process of syncing with a computer defaults to requiring no interaction beyond plugging it in.