Dieter Rams and the Ten Principles, Revisited
Dieter Rams's ten principles of good design were formulated for industrial design at Braun in the 1970s. They are now cited in every design discipline, from brand identity to user interface design. The principles are sound. The question is whether they apply to graphic design as directly as designers assume.
What Transfers
"Good design is as little design as possible." This translates directly. A brand identity with fewer elements, each carefully considered, outperforms one with many elements carelessly assembled. The principle of reduction is universal across design disciplines.
"Good design is honest." This applies with particular force to packaging design. Packaging that makes a product appear larger, more premium, or more natural than it is, is dishonest design. The studio declines projects where the brief requires the packaging to misrepresent the product. This is not morality. It is professional practice. Dishonest packaging erodes trust, and trust is the foundation of brand value.
"Good design is long-lasting." A brand identity designed to be timeless will outlast one designed to be contemporary. The distinction matters. Contemporary design follows current trends. Timeless design ignores them. Helvetica remains functional after seventy years not because it was ahead of its time but because it was not of its time at all.
What Does Not Transfer
"Good design is innovative." Innovation in industrial design means new solutions to functional problems. Innovation in graphic design is less clearly defined. A brand identity does not need to be innovative. It needs to be appropriate and distinctive. Innovation for its own sake in brand design produces novelty, which ages faster than convention.
"Good design makes a product useful." Graphic design does not make a product useful. It makes a product understandable. A well-designed label does not improve the wine. It communicates clearly what the wine is, who made it, and what the drinker can expect. This is a different function from usefulness, and conflating the two leads to design that tries to do more than design can do.
The Relevance
Rams's principles are useful as a framework for evaluation, not as rules for production. They provide a vocabulary for discussing why one design decision is better than another. "Is this honest?" is a more productive question than "Is this beautiful?" "Is this as little design as possible?" is more productive than "Does this look minimal?"
The principles endure because they ask the right questions. The answers change with context, medium, and purpose. That is appropriate. Principles that dictate answers are not principles. They are instructions.