Adopting radical design

Radical new approaches to design are often controversial, especially if they challenge a ‘traditional’ model — where many are instantly dismissed by their potential audience as being ugly. I recently experienced this while looking at purchasing a new scooter. It’s an interesting process and made me wonder.. are we missing out on mass improvements within design — instead restricting ourselves to incremental design improvements?

Why do most people buy houses that look the same as they did when they were children? Is it because we have an idea of how something should look and we aren’t prepared to accept anything different? Many modern styled, environmentally friendly, houses are considered ugly by the majority of the home buying public.

Another example is some of the amazing automotive design that’s usually shown at motor shows but when the car finally reaches production is always tuned down to resemble other cars on the market. Is it a fear in the knowledge that people reject design change if too radical? Cars have changed their design over time, but it has been incremental.

My example about scooter shopping came up when comparing the Piaggio MP3 to the new range of Vespas (which I’ve owned in the past). At first I thought it was ugly and didn’t consider it over the classically designed Vespa but then I started to think why I’d jumped to that conclusion. Why did I think a scooter needed to resemble the original design that’s now 50 years old in order to be beautiful? This view was shared by many people I showed the MP3 too, though the MP3 is a production model, and does sell, I would be interested to see who is buying it though — and what they think of it’s appearance. Maybe it’s only sold to people who don’t care about it’s physical attributes, or maybe there are people that see past traditional design and are ready to embrace a more modern approach to an old idea? The bike has an option of a hybrid engine that’s better for the environment, it’s got 3 wheels so it’s safer and handles better, it uses an internal frame so it’s more rigid — in many ways it’s a better bike.

Another interesting thought is what sort of reception did the Vespa get when it first came on the market? It’s design was far removed from any other available bike, yet it went on to become a great success and develop a cult following. Maybe radical designs do that once they’re accepted?

This principle may work better in graphic design, not to say challenging conventions isn’t worth while. However, leveraging existing cultural visual language to ensure the right message is delivered is a valid argument. More so in interactive design, where you need to ensure an interface is useable and performs as it’s expected. Should we be so strict when we talk about product design and architecture though? Maybe I should really examine why I want a Vespa over an MP3 ..