Menu Search
Jump to the content X

Does Form Follow Function?


You’ve likely heard the phrase “form follows function,” but have you really thought about what it means or what it implies about Web design? On the surface, “form follows function” seems to make a lot of sense. The way something looks should be determined by its purpose. Is this really true? Does the phrase hold up upon deeper inspection?

In the context of designing a website, “form follows function” is often taken to mean that the designer should first gather the website’s requirements from the client and then determine the aesthetics of the website based on those “functional” requirements1. While that’s certainly good practice, is “form follows function” really being applied? Are client requirements the “function” of a website or something else?

As you read through this post, keep these questions in mind. Think of your own process for designing and developing websites, and consider whether and how “form follows function” applies to it.

Historical Background Link

While sometimes attributed to sculptor Horatio Greenough, the phrase “form follows function” was coined by American architect Louis Sullivan. In his 1896 article, “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered2,” Sullivan wrote:

“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”

At the time, technology, tastes and economics were rapidly changing. The forms of late-19th century buildings were still being worked out, based on innovation going all the way back to ancient Greek and Roman architecture. It was clear to Sullivan that a new form for buildings was needed, and he thought that form ought to come from the function of a building, not historical precedent.

This new form became the modern structural steel skyscraper.


Frank Lloyd Wright, who was then Sullivan’s assistant, adopted the phrase “form follows function” and further promoted it. The Guggenheim Museum is a good example of Wright’s application of the principle. It’s spiral shape was intended to allow visitors to easily view the artwork within.


In 1908 Austrian architect, Adolf Loos proclaimed that architectural “ornament was a crime” (PDF)3. Modernist architects such as Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe adopted both “ornamentation is crime” and “form follows function” as moral principles and applied them to design.

The two phrases do not mean the same thing though. “Form follows function” allows for ornamentation as long as it serves a function.

Still, modernism in architecture emerged from both principles. Its goal was to determine the form of a building solely from functional requirements and not traditional aesthetics.

Bauhaus Ideology and the Future of Web Design4

View more presentations5 by Simon Collison6.

Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus7, a school of thought and movement in art that espoused that an object’s design should be dominated by its function. The Bauhaus was in some ways a reaction against the emotional expressionism of the time, and its design aesthetic was based on simple forms, clean lines, rationality and, of course, functionality.

Gropius’ goal was:

“to create a new guild of craftsmen, without the class distinctions which raise an arrogant barrier between craftsman and artist.”

The Bauhaus was eventually closed under pressure from the Nazi regime, which branded the school, and modernism in general, as un-German.

Several members of the Bauhaus found their way to the United States. Mies van der Rohe migrated to Chicago after the school closed, bringing the ideas of the Bauhaus with him to the city that epitomized “form follows function.” Walter Gropius among others began teaching at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Both influenced American architect Phillip Johnson8.

Johnson was a strong proponent of modern architecture and helped assemble the show “The International Style: Architecture Since 19229” at the Museum of Modern Art. The design principles identified by the International Style were:

  1. Expression of volume rather than mass,
  2. Balance rather than preconceived symmetry,
  3. Expulsion of applied ornament.

Johnson’s work was often a balancing act between minimalism and pop art. He later introduced the work of both Mark Rothko and Andy Warhol to the Museum of Modern Art. Johnson belonged to the post-modernist movement in architecture10, which was a reaction to Modernism and Functionalism11.

Plaza de Castilla (Madrid)

Johnson claimed that the profession of architecture has no functional responsibility whatsoever, saying:

“Where form comes from I don’t know, but it has nothing at all to do with the functional or sociological aspects of our architecture.”

Further Resources Link

The following articles offer additional perspective on the history of the phrase “form follows function” and the Bauhaus.

Interpreting “Form Follows Function” Link

There are two ways to interpret the phrase “form follows function”:

  • Descriptive: beauty results from purity of function;
  • Prescriptive: aesthetic considerations in design should be secondary to functional considerations.

Descriptive Interpretation Link

The descriptive interpretation favors simplicity to complexity. It states that beauty results from purity of function and not from ornamentation. This ideal derives from the belief that form follows function in nature. Is this really true?

Actually, the opposite is true. Evolution passes on genetic traits to subsequent generations without any rationale for their purpose. Each generation of a species then finds a use for the form it has inherited. Function follows form in nature.

Applying functional elements to a design is generally a more objective process than applying aesthetic elements. A functionally objective process results in designs that are timeless but may be perceived as simple and uninteresting.

Prescriptive Interpretation Link

The prescriptive interpretation prioritizes functionality over all other design considerations, including usability, ergonomics and aesthetics.

Aesthetic considerations in design should be secondary to functional considerations. Is this interpretation problematic? Does it lead designers to ask the wrong questions about a given design?

This interpretation would seem to lead to designers to ask what should be omitted from a design. What elements of a design do not serve a function and thus ought to be removed? Should the form of a design be determined solely by its function?

Taken to the logical conclusion, every element would ultimately have the same design. Every functional item would have one and only one design. Before an object’s form could be changed, it would need to serve a different function.

Better questions come from your criteria for success. What aspects of you design are critical to success? When time or resources is limited, what design trade-offs would least harm the design’s success? Sometimes, certain aesthetics will have to be abandoned, and sometimes certain functionality will have to be abandoned. Sometimes both aesthetics and functionality will need to be compromised.

Further Resources Link

The following articles argue that the form of a design should follow its function.

The articles below argue that “form follows function” is not an absolute rule.

How To Design A Clock Link

If we were to follow “form follows function” as a hard and fast rule, what would a clock look like. It’s function is to tell time and nothing else. A designer might conclude that the simplest, fastest and most accurate way to show time would be on a digital display. Digital clocks are not particularly beautiful, though.

clock collage

Analog displays are more aesthetically pleasing to most people. They aren’t quite as accurate, and people usually need an extra moment or two to tell the time, but they are generally nicer to look at.

Which clock above is best? Would you feel the same about either clock below if its display was digital?

clock collage

Rather than use “form follows function” as an inflexible rule, a better route would be to design our clock based on success criteria24. If speed and accuracy are most important to the clock’s success, then a digital display would be best. If aesthetics are more important, then an analog display would be the better choice.

Success criteria25, not function, should determine form.

How do you determine your success criteria? Ultimately, you have to define them yourself or ask your client to define them26 for the given project. Either way, they would likely do the following:

  1. Identify everyone with a stake in the project,
  2. Determine the goals of each stakeholder,
  3. Prioritize and harmonize those goals,
  4. Decide how success will be measured.

What will determine the success of our clock?

Is the clock that sells best the most successful? What if fewer clocks sales could bring greater profit? Who is the market for our clock? Is being able to tell the time at a quick glance more important to our target buyers than making a statement on their living room wall? How much are they willing to spend on a clock?

Looking within your own company, how will the clock affect your brand? Would you be proud to put your name on the clock? Are sales figures irrelevant because the clock will mainly serve to get people to buy your line of wrist watches.

Will your clock be mass produced, or is this a one-time project, like some of the clocks in the images above? If it’s one of a kind, who is to benefit from it? The client who commissioned it or the audience that will view it?

The answers to these and many more questions will be specific to the project. Ultimately, you have to determine the goals of your clock and how you will measure the success of those goals. What you come up with will lead you to your success criteria and design objectives. You could decide on an accurate digital clock for mass consumption or a work of art hanging in the terminal of a major railroad station.

Perhaps your clock will need to be both beautiful and accurate.


Beautiful Things Function Better Link

People spend more time with products that they find beautiful, and they claim they are easier to use. The products seem to function better because they are beautiful.

Human beings have an attractiveness bias27; we perceive beautiful things as being better, regardless of whether they actually are better. All else being equal, we prefer beautiful things, and we believe beautiful things function better. As in nature, function can follow form.

Most marketers knows that our purchasing decisions are based primarily on emotion. We use logic to rationalize those decisions. We are emotional beings. Aesthetics influence our opinions of products, and we typically find aesthetically pleasing products to be more effective simply by virtue of their aesthetic appeal.

Steven P. Anderson speaks of the importance of aesthetics in design in his post on A List Apart, “In Defense of Eye Candy28.” Drawing on an example in the book Emotional Design, he notes:

“Researchers in Japan set up two ATMs, ‘identical in function, the number of buttons, and how they worked.’ The only difference was that one machine’s buttons and screens were arranged more attractively than the other. In both Japan and Israel (where this study was repeated) researchers observed that subjects encountered fewer difficulties with the more attractive machine. The attractive machine actually worked better.”

Perhaps this can be explained by the “halo effect,” whereby we carry over previous judgements of certain products to future judgements of similar or related products. A beautiful product triggers positive emotions that inform your judgment of its usability. The product does not necessarily function better, but you perceive it as functioning better because of its looks.

You can define aesthetics in many ways, but it comes down to connecting thought, emotion and beauty. How something looks affects us emotionally and influences what we think about it.

If pure aesthetics influence our perception of a product’s functionality, if we’re willing to take an extra second to learn how to use things that we find beautiful, and if we think objects function better because they’re beautiful, then does form follow function or does function follow form?

Further Resources Link

The articles below deal more with the connection between aesthetics, emotion and usability.

Applying “Form Follows Function” to Web Design Link

What’s the function of a website? Does a website have a single function? The function of a blog is to communicate information. It might also be a means to deliver advertising or to generate leads to sell a service. An e-commerce website also communicates information. It also exists to sell products.

“Form follows function” might dictate that all e-commerce websites should look the same. But would you design a website for computer networking hardware and one for children’s toys to look exactly the same? Obviously not.

At the start of this post, I described the well-known scenario in which you gather requirements from a client33 and then proceed to design the website. Are those requirements “functions”? Some no doubt are. How many pages will the website have? Will the content need to be updated often? Is a shopping cart needed? What are the goals of the website in the context of the overall goals of the business?

If you’re asking merely for functional requirements, you aren’t asking the right questions. Better questions seek to define what success looks like for the website. Should the e-commerce website serve to generate leads to draw people into the physical store. Will all of those pages help drive sales, or are some plain fluff?

Define your success criteria first. Think of our clock example. Will success come from function or aesthetics. What would make your website successful? What is most critical to achieve that success.

The principle of “form follows function” assumes that objects exist because of their function. That’s simply not true. There could be any number of reasons why something exists, from chance to some broad aesthetic value and anything in between. An object can exist for reasons other than function.

Mother Ann Lee (1736–1784), founder of the Shaker movement in America, proposed another idea. “Every force evolves a form.” Dynamic forces shape eventual forms. These forces could be functional or could be aesthetic, spiritual, communal or random.

“Every force evolves a form” is a more useful guide34 for designers to follow:

“Function alone does not drive form. Form evolves from the holistic forces of the project—audience needs, client desires, ethical obligations, aesthetic inclinations, material properties, cultural presuppositions, and yes, functional requirements.

“For working designers, “every force evolves a form” is a more useful rule. The design process actually begins with something that doesn’t yet exist but needs to exist, and it moves forward toward a formal result. Function alone doesn’t drive the resultant form. The form evolves from the holistic forces of the project—audience needs, client desires, ethical obligations, aesthetic inclinations, material properties, cultural presuppositions, and yes, functional requirements. “Function” is rightly seen as a single, isolated, quantifiable aspect of the overall “force” driving the form.”

Does all of the above mean that you should ignore “form follows function” completely? Not at all. Use the descriptive interpretation of “form follows function” as an aesthetic guide. Beauty often does come from function. A building should not look like a boat or a magazine. Each has a different function, and that function helps to define what makes it successful.

Objects with different functions should look different aesthetically.

However, don’t apply the prescriptive interpretation of “form follows function” as a design rule. Pure function may not be the most important factor of success. Focus on the relative importance of both form and function as based on your criteria for success when making design decisions. Balance form and function as needed, while letting success criteria guide your decisions.

Further Resources Link

The articles below take a balanced approach to “form follows function.” They regard form and function as working together, with both following the design’s objectives.

Examples Link

Google Link

Google’s home page is little more than a search box. Over time, links have been added, but the page has clearly been designed around its primary function, which is search. The sparse design is likely a key factor in Google’s early success. Other search engines at the time did not have pages that communicated a single clear function.


Function, no doubt, guided Google’s success criteria. The only thing the company wanted a visitor to do upon reaching the home page was to type a query in the box and click the “Search” button.

Craigslist Link

Craigslist is perhaps the poster child for subordinating form to function. Many think the website could use a redesign42, but the Craigslist faithful see no reason to change. The website’s design, while not aesthetically pleasing, is functional.


As with Google, Craigslist’s success was based on functional considerations. Beautiful it is not, but the website does work. It doesn’t take long for anyone who stumbles on the website to learn how to use it. Would aesthetic considerations have made the website easier to use and made Craigslist even more successful?

Tweetie Link

The Twitter application Tweetie lacks some features that other desktop and smart-phone Twitter apps include. Tweetie users claim not to care. The program has earned its loyal audience through its beautiful design. It does what it needs to do, and some functionality has been deliberately left out to stay true to the design objectives.


One of the early goals of Tweetie was to embrace the iPhone interface. It was built for people who already use Apple products and who appreciate aesthetics for the sake of aesthetics. Form in and of itself was an important success criterion.

USB Necklace Link

Most USB drives are essentially the same. Their functionality differs little from one drive to the next. Some hold more data, some transfer data faster, some include encryption and some are more rugged.

USB Necklace

If you were to buy either of the USB necklaces above, would it be because of the specs? Or because of the function of the drive itself? It’s doubtful. You would likely have purchased it based on looks and your emotional response to it. You might glance at the specs to make sure the drive meets your minimum needs, but you would be using the specs to justify your emotional response to the aesthetics.

Summary Link

Does form follow function? Function certainly influences form in many designs, but does it have to? This post should have enough examples to show that function sometimes follows form.

“Form follows function” works well as an aesthetic guide. Many designers, me included, believe that beauty arises from functional considerations. Functionality is important to design, but it isn’t the only thing that should be considered.

Both function and form can guide design. More often, both follow something else. Ultimately, you need to define your criteria for success, from which the design will evolve.

Success criteria helps you determine the functionality needed in your website and the form it should take.


Footnotes Link

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42

↑ Back to top Tweet itShare on Facebook

Steven Bradley is the author of Design Fundamentals: Elements, Attributes, & Principles and CSS Animations and Transitions for the Modern Web. When not writing books he can be found writing for his blog at Vanseo Design or on his small business forum.

  1. 1

    Good Article!


    • 2

      Probably slightly out of context, but anyway…
      In reality, about 50 percent of my customers come to me with webdesign assignments where I’m the one ending up creating the content, hence functional elements and text blocks for them. What this comes down to is that I have no clear idea of ‘function’ as I start working on wire frames or mock-ups. This leads to a chicken-egg scenario where form can follow function as well as vice-versa. Conclusion: Not everything is mapped-out for you to just go and apply form/design to it. Many cases will require you to do both, and let’s be honest, not always in the right order, allowing you to be consultant on function as well as designer on form.

  2. 3

    Good article and some interesting points made. I would agree that success criteria should be a determining factor when developing form…

    …However, it can be argued that the “function” of any product is to be ‘successful’ within it’s purpose, otherwise there would be no point in creating it. Therefore “Form follows Function” is still a reasonable rule to follow in design.

    I would also challenge your suggestion that “digital clock displays do not lend themselves to aesthetics as well as analogue ones do”
    Check this link out;

    …granted, they’re not all digital, but I think you would agree that the digital clocks featured in this list are just as creative and aesthetically pleasing as the analogue ones.

    Thanks for writing / sharing this article, it provoked some interesting discussions here in my office.

    • 4

      Definitely some nice looking clocks on the other side of that link and yes some of the digital clocks are aesthetically pleasing. I guess it wasn’t fair of me to imply that no digital clock could be beautiful. That wasn’t my intention, though I would say analog clocks tend to be more aesthetically pleasing.

      “However, it can be argued that the “function” of any product is to be ’successful’ within it’s purpose, otherwise there would be no point in creating it.”

      I would have said the same before writing this article. I think what it comes down to is defining what is the function of something. If you design a thing solely for aesthetic purpose are the aesthetics then the function? Take art. Granted art isn’t the same as design, but does there have to be any function in the art other than to be aesthetically pleasing? There could and probably should be, but does there have to be?

      • 5

        I agree with bchild, “Form follows function” is still valid — you have just decided that the function (of the clock, to use that example) is to “be aesthetically pleasing while useful.”
        There’s no contradiction there. As a programmer, one just needs to keep in mind that the technical aspect of an interface is not its purpose/function/success criterion (whatever you want to call it; to me those are synonyms), or at least that it is not limited to it.

        “Every functional item would have one and only one design.”
        Yes—assuming that the function is *exactly* identical, which is impossible (?).
        There are several clocks in my house: Living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, as well as on my wrist, computer, etc. Some of those are obviously different, others have more subtle differences in function. My living room clock, for example, may look bright and cheerful; my office clock sleek and professional.
        All of these directly follow its respective function.
        If you’re thinking, “I didn’t consider any of this when I got the clock, so how can it possibly be its function?” — Well, maybe the function of your clock is that it was easily available at your local store and not too expensive. That’s still a valid function though frowned upon by a die-hard interior designers; to him, it would have another function, an aesthetic function presumably, that the clock may not fulfill.

  3. 6
  4. 7

    Appreciate your efforts in putting this together.


  5. 8

    To me, form follows function, but this in NO WAY indicates that one is superior to the other. Many times people have a narrow mindset and will think “Function OR Design?”, to which I always tell them.

    “Function AND Design”

    Each is worth $0.50, so would you rather have $0.50 or $1?

  6. 9

    I’d have to disagree with some of the underlying tenants of this article. I believe that that the best designs in fact do result from applying “form follows function” to it’s fullest. In fact, it’s in properly defining your “function criteria” that you gets you the most success (and the type of success you are looking for as well). The “success criteria” you mention is *part* of the functional criteria, not separate from it.

    For example, a piece of art may not have a *utilitarian* function but it usually does have an function nonetheless. Much of the time that function is to convey some thought to emotion to the viewer of the work (the form) … even if that emotion is simply one of “being pleasing to the eye”. I’m guessing you probably would have defined “being pleasing to the eye” as a “success criteria”.

    To further your earlier example with respect to site design, if we only went as far to define the “function” of any given e-commerce site to “advertise/sell products to potential consumers” then they would in fact probably all look the same save for differing products and company names/color schemes. On some level many of these sites in fact *will* be exactly the same … especially if the site uses an underlying framework with functionality geared to dynamically generate pages for e-commerce sites.

    If we further define the function of the site to be to “advertise/sell *toys* to potential customers” then our form should naturally adapt to follow what ever functionality is specific to selling toys (which in part would be to appeal to the age group for which the toys are geared toward). We can still use our nice PHP framework, but the layout and style should be predominantly “kid-friendly” … except for perhaps the “checkout” area which is where the parents will likely be making the purchases.

    To use a couple phrases from this article, I think that, every force (i.e. needs/wants) evolves a function (not form). To put it another way, “function follows force” and therefore “form follows function follows force”. Only when you fully understand the “forces” involved can you most fully define the function and thus create the most optimal form (or perhaps one of the most optimal should the definition allow for a range). If you only partly understand the force, then you will have a less than optimal function definition and; therefore, your definition will not lead to the most optimal form.

  7. 10

    Honestly, I didn’t have the courage to read it all but the part I read made sense. “Success criterias over functional criterias” I think is what you wanted to say but you did it in around 3242 words…!

  8. 11

    Great article! In the most used products, the form follows function very close. But as you’ve said sometimes the form defines a new way of approaching function, and maybe creates new functions. That reminds me of “you don’t need eyes to see, you need vision” quote.

  9. 12

    Though I don’t agree with all points of this article, the argument is presented very thoroughly and has many very valid points.

    I especially liked the success criteria wording, and success criteria, as you said, is not always based on function alone. Would have been successful if it looked like Craigslist? No.

    Great work Steven. You’ve got my vote.

  10. 13

    Excellent article!
    I loved the TED talk, and now you’ve given me endless links to check out pertaining to this idea.
    Just in time for a redesign I’m doing.

  11. 14

    Just a quick clarification about Frank Lloyd Wright. He did not further promote the “form follow function” mantra. Instead, he integrated the two, and believed that “form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.”

    • 15

      I agree with you (and of course Frank Lloyd Wright), it’s not about choosing between form and function, but making the functional elements pleasant.

    • 16

      Mike I meant it in the sense that the phrase gained prominence through his work. Is that fair to say? It was through reading about Wright years ago that I first heard the phrase.

      My bad if I’m misstating things.

  12. 17

    I think it’s less of which one leads the other.

    While the Functional requirements (of anything) can affect the Form and vice-versa, it seems that both Form and Function stem directly from a defined Purpose. Purpose is what blends the two together. I can’t think of an example where you would find Form or Function independent of each other (or that either must come first), but for any example both have roots in a common Purpose and the result is the proportion of the perceived dominance of Form or Function. Ultimately, without Purpose well defined, the result will have varying levels of success.

    In websites, the Purpose is usually defined by business goals, and those break out into Form goals (Brand, Communication, Design) and Function (User Needs, System Requirements, etc).

    • 18

      That’s pretty much what I was trying to say Darrel. I think the phrase has often been interpreted as function leading form, but I agree with you that both work together and are led by other things.

    • 19

      This is all a question of definition/interpretation. I’m convinced that the quote equates “function” to “purpose” and “form” to “design” (both in terms of technology and aesthetics).

      What a website does and how it does so are both part of its “form,” while its function may be to communicate a certain brand image, to satisfy the user needs, and to meet certain technical requirements.

  13. 20

    You have to, as well, consider the context for exactly what ornamentation was when it was considered a crime. I think that most of us would still agree what the modernists considered a crime was, in fact, just that in comparison to the bold beauty of the modern ideal.

    can we say that design is empty without good content?

    • 21

      True. Context is important. The ornamentation they were thinking about was a bit much for my taste as well.

  14. 22

    These are the kinds of amazing articles that make Smashing a cut above the rest. Bravo!

    • 23

      Thanks Nick. By the way I enjoy watching the videos you and Jim create for each week. Great stuff.

  15. 24

    Top notch article, Steve… lots of well-put info and opinions

  16. 25

    I really enjoy these in-depth reads. Thanks so much for taking the time to put this together!

  17. 26

    Interesting article. Great topic. Loved the TED Talk!

  18. 27

    i always make it like “form follows function” and if that works is make it good-looking. it’s the best for me. when i began with webdesign ten years ago i first made the beautiful parts and pastet the usibility and content in it. that was often frustrating.

  19. 28

    Goes to show that as we uncover the priorities of a design project, we all end up knowing that its evolution into a final instance is taken on by considerations of ‘everything’ and back onto itself again, til all things align or trade off from each other.

  20. 29

    To me it seems the author never really grasped what “form follows function” was meant to convey. At least, certainly not what I’ve always understood it to mean. The “function” of a USB necklace jewelry item includes being unique, beautiful, and/or cool in a feminine or masculine way (since that is what jewelry is for), being wearable (since you have to wear it), and being able to actually connect to a computer and store data (since that’s what USB devices do). “Form follows function” does NOT mean form is limited to function (i.e., it does NOT mean austerity or doing the minimum to complete the function). The key word is “follows.” Form has a lot of leeway in the perimeter of function to express itself in creative and interesting ways.

    Most often when designers have aggressively broken the “rule” (actually “guideline”) of “form follows function,” the result is sometimes cool to look at, for a few minutes. But in the long run you end up with pain. This is literally true with a lot of modernist/postmodernist furniture. It looks all trendy and hot, until you try to sit on it, and realize it was never meant for humans. The same happens with experimental typography. Yes, it’s cool when you first see it. But then you realize that if someone tried to print a lengthy book that way, you wouldn’t want to read it; you would have a headache after the first chapter. These are just a couple examples. A postmodernist designer may end up with a chair that is comfortable, or a typeface that is easy to read, but in that case they have really followed “form follows function” in spite of themselves, whether they will admit it or not.

    In some cases breaking the rules may not matter, because maybe the chair was never meant to be actually used, or maybe the book of bad typography is so short that people wouldn’t mind bearing with it for the novelty of it. But even in these cases, form is following function. It’s just that the function is highly unconventional: to make a statement, to rock the boat, to show off in some trendy breaking-the-rules sort of way.

    • 30

      Michael prior to writing this article I would have agreed with what you’re saying. After researching it came across to me that the phrase was meant to imply that form comes solely from function. I don’t think that means that it can’t also be aesthetically pleasing, but rather than any form should come solely out of function.

      In the case of the USB, is being beautiful and unique truly a function of the USB. Maybe here since it’s also a necklace you could argue that it is, but with the USB itself I wouldn’t include the pure aesthetics as a function.

      I agree with everything you said about being trendy. I hope I didn’t imply that you should favor trends over function. I still think the most aesthetically beautiful designs arise out of function.

    • 31

      Well said, Michael. I agree entirely.

      I propose rewriting history and changing the quote from “form follows function” to “design follows purpose” — many people misunderstand the meaning of “function.”*
      Then again in the altered version, people might misunderstand “design,” as it’s often used to refer to the aesthetic aspect only.

      (* That’s my interpretation of the quote anyway; don’t want to “offend” anyone who prefers another interpretation.)

  21. 32

    A very solid piece with loads of good and interesting information. The only major gripe to be had is the bit about evolution. One could dissect that section into very small pieces and break down how so many are wrong, but this isn’t the place. You’re hardly the only person to misunderstand the principles of evolution and natural selection, so don’t sweat it, but I might recommend avoiding such references in the future to avoid further muddying the waters of that particular issue.

    • 33

      Ben you’re probably right that this isn’t the place to discuss evolution, but I don’t mind talking and learning. Feel free to follow the link back to my site and contact me through it. I’m not 100% sure where I’ve misunderstood things, but I’m happy to learn more if you want to share.

    • 34

      Considering that many scientists themselves vehemently disagree with one another on the principles of evolution, I hardly think Steven can be blamed himself for misstating anything. Is the theory of evolution the same today as it was 20 years ago? What about 50 years ago? What about when Darwin first introduced the idea? And why is it still called a “theory”, if it’s a fact? Could that be because people are still “theorizing” about it?

      Anyhow, like you said, this is not the place for that, but I guess my point is that Steven shouldn’t necessarily be faulted for offering a non-mainstream view of evolution considering how that theory itself has, ironically, evolved to the point that if Charles Darwin were alive today, I think he may just deny his own findings.

      Great article, nonetheless, Steven. Definitely a lot here to consider and dissect.

  22. 35

    In any practical endeavor, function is the starting point. The carpenter, the speaker, the architect, and the software engineer have something in common: their creation must work. The chair must fit, the speech must convey, the building must accommodate, and the code must carry out the task. If this first criterion is not met, nothing else matters.

    For the artists among us, liberal and otherwise, function is not enough. We agonize over materials, proportions, words, strategies, and a thousand other details. We invest a part of ourselves seeking to marry form and function.

    We owe an enormous debt to those who understand the principles of form and function. Because of them, the Chrysler Building is not a box and the Gettysburg Address is not just another speech.

  23. 36

    Good article. A bit extense though but recommended reading.

    I started my career on web design and development thinking in aesthetics first and then function. Soon enough I found that form does follow function and my projects began to be more coherent.
    Lately I’ve been in the middle. Sometimes I find myself removing some functionality for the sake of look and feel. Bottom line (for me) are projects that work well for the user and that are pleasant to use.

    Cheers and keep up the good work

  24. 37

    About your clock example, I really won’t agree with you. I still think “form follows function” should drive the process of designing a watch.

    You see… the watch isn’t always a simple watch. The watch in my car or in my computer should be digital as it will only be used to tell the time. I want it simple and fast.

    But the watch in my wrist or the watch in my living room, that one will have to be analogue and, therefore, beautiful! It’s an ornament to myself and to my home! Hence, being beautiful is part of the clock’s function… in this scenario, being beautiful IS following the function.

    Avoid thinking that simpler = more functional.

    • 38

      Is being beautiful really a function of the clock or watch? I think that would be more based on the criteria you define for success than function. I think the function of either clock or watch is to tell time and nothing more. The aesthetic considerations come from something else and it’s that something else (success criteria) that drives the design process.

      I guess it comes down to what you consider function and how you define that term. I don’t think simpler automatically means more functional. Hence the section on beautiful things functioning better.

      • 39

        Think about Breitling creating a new wristwatch. Don’t you think the “looks”, the inherent “status” will be part of the function? Of course, it can fit in the success criteria. But it’s part of the desired functions. A designer working on the watch will have that as a purpose.

        Mainly… I wouldn’t say that telling the time is the only function of such a luxurious wristwatch, at all. I mean… it has to be more :)

        • 40

          I think we’re kind of agreeing, but calling the same thing by a different name. To me the looks with the watch aren’t function. They’re success criteria. The aesthetics are definitely important to the design and the purpose of the watch, but I don’t see it as function.

  25. 41

    Great article. But what and where are the pair of tilting buildings in the third picture?

    • 42

      Thanks Eric. The buildings are Puerta de Europa in Madrid. If you click the link for Phillip Johnson a paragraph or two above the image it’ll take you to the Wikiepedia page on Johnson, who was the architect.

    • 43

      Maybe not so important information, just because you asked about the buildings: they actually don´t look that tilted. The wide angle photography has increased that sensation. You can notice that in the buses at the bottom.

      • 44

        Oh yeah. Funny. I hadn’t noticed that when I first came across the image, but you can clearly see it looking at the buses like you say.

        • 45

          Actually, I’d wondered about that, just because the structural verticals in the middles of the towers appeared to want to be pure verticals, but were also tilted in. Thanks!

  26. 46

    Interesting topic, but I feel the author completely missed the point himself. The posting was lengthy and overwritten. If “Every force evolves a form” or “Form follows function” then the post should have been focused on it’s application to web design with minimal words. In general I think smashing should consider shortening all their postings to more precise information.

  27. 47

    Great article!

    >>>The descriptive interpretation favors simplicity to complexity. It states that beauty results from purity of function and not from ornamentation.

    Can you stand one more quote from an architect?

    Beauty is a consequential thing, a product of solving problems correctly.
    — Joseph Esherick, architect

    I like the idea of “success criteria,” although even that can be abused.

  28. 48

    I think in web design, form and function go hand in hand. You can’t think about form without considering function and vice versa. When I design a website, I don’t simply design it then think “okay, now how am I going to make this function” I do the function as I create the form.

    In other concepts form could follow function or the other way around but I feel that in web design if you don’t think about it together then you can’t design a proper website. Because I feel if you spend your time doing the form, then later do the function, you’re basically a graphic designer then you finally realize you have to flip the switch to be a web designer. You can’t really do that, your mind has to be thinking form and function at the same time to create a site that both looks fantastic and has excellent usability.

  29. 49

    Madrid on the frontpage, woot!

  30. 50

    Everything is fine with that principle, just look at things like a , a tool has been working for thousands of years mostly unchanged in its form. The problem nowadays might be the fact, we live in a saturated market, every company is fighting for market shares, lots of consumers are blended by a “stylish” design. And well, it works, products are sold indenpendently of their function. Just look at the whole automotive industry, the core is hardly changing, “futuristic” designs help to establish the special kind of company´s image. Up to the point you notice you can hardly see anything through the rear window of your brand new car for example. The list of such awful examples is endless.


↑ Back to top