Talk:Visual design elements and principles

Use more varied or general examples

The examples given in the text of this article all seem to relate to interior design. The principles of design expressed here also apply to graphic design, interface design, industrial design etc. It would be good to give multiple examples from different fields or speak generically. For example, the Proximity topic mentions "Proximity in home decor" refers specifically to the principle of proximity with furniture, using a weak example that doesn't translate easily to other fields. In this example, proximity is also used, for instance, in interaction design to imply a relationship. That cannot be inferred from the furniture example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.170.128.65 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Thanks to the dedicated work of an interior designer, the article covers that discipline well. However the article now appears to suggest that interior design is the most important or fundamental design discipline, neglecting other - at least equally and perhaps even more fundamental - design disciplines.193.214.27.129 (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the relationship between this entry and the gestalt theory? They seem to cover much of the same ground. http://daphne.palomar.edu/design/gestalt.html and then this bibliography under perception. Rabourn (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge

I disagree with the merging. I think the actual elements & principles should be left separate for those looking for just that. Possibly just merging those two pages renaming them Elements & Principles of Design instead of have them on 2 different pages may be a good idea, but not to merge it in with other stuff. 12th October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.81.253 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. If someone just needs the elements and principles (as I did), they wouldn't want to have to look through a different article. When the title 'elements of design' comes up you know exactly what you're getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.50.223 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

responses to the merge tag

Hi

I don't think that Principles of Art, Elements of Art, or basic drawing topics should be merged into Design Principles. Even though Art and Design may have overlapping principles and elements, I see them as separate topics. Art and design are related, but art isn’t always design and design is not always art. I can definitely see basic drawing topics being referred to from this section. But I think they would be more useful within their own context.whats the purpose of design elements. sh0wnpc 17:15, 01 October 2006

I agree, somewhat

I agree that these topics should not be merged together.

I think that designpinche culeros

(as in graphic design) is a subset of art, and that design (as in principles) make good art possible. However, design is discussed and used differently in graphic design than it is in the fine arts. Therefore, they should be separate topics.

I oppose the merge

The basic topic lists are a contents system (see Wikipedia:Contents) and not merely lists or articles. They're for navigation and to present the basics. There's going to be some redundancy with other articles, but to leave any major subject out will create a hole in the set's topic coverage. I also agree with the arguments posed above.  The Transhumanist   14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No Merge

The elements of art should not be merged because they are separate components that exist in an artwork or design. With that being said, they are not techniques as described in the definition. For example a texture (an art element) may have a particular characteristic, such as rough or smooth, but it is not a process or technique. It can not on it's own create something new. A better word to replace "technique" would be part, component, unit or feature.

Technique can be an execution of an artwork or skillful way of achieving something.Drossbach 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research versus Reliable Sources

The Design elements and principles article is trending away from a neutral point of view and verifiable content. I suggest contributors should locate reliable sources such as other Wikipedia articles, web sites or publications. Include these sources within the text.

For example, when the article talks about color, a reliable source might be the Color theory article (not to be confused with the band, Color Theory).

I mentioned the Wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiable content, but Wikipedia explains these guidelines better than I can...

• Wikipedia style manual
• No original research
• Citing sources
• Perfection is the enemy of good enough

--Mtd2006 (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Godawful opening paragraph

The current opening paragraph is a disaster:

"Design elements and principles are the basic visual toolbox of design tactics in every visual design discipline. The elements form the basic vocabulary of visual design, while the principles constitute the broader structural aspects of the composition.

These concepts and elements drive all intentional design strategies."

Firstly, it needs to be plain English. Vapid jargon like "visual toolbox" and "design tactics" need to be replaced with things that the average reader might have a chance of actually understanding. Cf. also WP:NOT. The opening paragraph (as opposed to the body of the article) should answer the question "What are design elements and principles?" without trying too explain why they're needed. So, I propose the following:

"Design elements and principles describe fundamental ideas about the practice of good visual design. They are assumed to be the basis of all intentional visual design strategies. The elements form the 'vocabulary' of the design, while the principles constitute the broader structural aspects of its composition."

--gilgongo (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now applied the changes as nobody has objected. --gilgongo (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Godawful everything

The entire article is a train wreck. It reads like it was written by a first year art school student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.165.36 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Some wood photographs on particle board are not even water resistant." This is utter drivel, ill start drafting something from a general perspective 79.140.222.58 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, when I first came across this article (to help me out a bit with art class), I had no clue where to start in fixing it. It seems to me that the information in the article was copied from another source, almost like a how-to guide in some areas. I've started to wikify / wikilink and cleanup a bit, but it will take time, not to mention that we need reliable sources. TheTwoRoads (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

I just came across this article a few days ago trying to look up some info for art class. I agree that it does need quite a bit of work to get it up to par. Here's a short list of some of the things that I think could dramatically improve the article, some of them of more importance than others...

• Add inline citations. There are references and external links in the article, however it would be of benefit to include them throughout the entire article. See
• Consider changing the title of the article to "Elements and principles of design" versus "Design elements and principles" as per WP:TITLE.
• Remove the information that sounds like a "how-to" article. It almost seems like most of the info that refers to interior design was copied from a how-to instructional book / website. We should consider making the information as neutral and general as possible, so that it was refer any art form.
• Keep it simple. As it stands, some sections of the article are far too long for comfortable reading. Besides, if the reader wants more information on an specific point, they can take a look at related articles that are linked to this one. Which brings me to my last thought...
• Add wikilinks. No article will be complete and useful without them.

That's all that I can really think of right now. Any thoughts? In the meantime, I'll be working on the above points =) TheTwoRoads (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now, the bulk of this article relates to visual design. I suggest removing the items related to interior design and explicitly keeping limits on the scope, by moving to a title such as "Elements and principles of visual design". Working that much into shape will be a big enough job. As I find time, I'll try to help. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article?

I believe the topmost item on any sensible to-do list ought to be:

• Determine the meaning of the word "design" in the title. (Who is the intended audience?)
  • Move the article to a title such as Elements and principles of ZYXW design to make that clear.
  • Recast the content to focus on the chosen scope.

Does this article cover graphic design, interior design, industrial design, product design, fashion design, some combination, or what? Recent edits seem to show some interest in keeping interior design in the mix. I think if the article tries to cover database design as well, just to choose a particularly unfitting example, the result will be messy, probably ugly, and certainly not very useful. Need some comments here... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is where I'm utterly confused at points. To me it feels like the first half of the article could apply to all visual art, which should probably be mentioned in the opening paragraphs after the split. The second half is obviously referring to interior design. I was thinking that the first article could be titled as "Elements and Principles of Visual Design", as the article pertains to all visual design fields, not just graphic design as you had mentioned. Saying that, the info within the article should be as general as possible.

The second half could be moved to "Elements and Principles of Interior Design" and have wikilinks to the Interior Design main article, or even merged later if need arises. This one is obviously more specific than the previous. A (very bold) thought has been lingering in my mind that perhaps we could even scrap the idea of creating a seperate article and incororate it into the Interior design article. TheTwoRoads (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article has too much unsourced content. The "Design methods" subheading under "Principles of design" looks like a series of how-to bullet points, all in one wall of text. The edit history looks like a single anon IP is adding these points one by one as they spring to mind, without citing a reliable source. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I went through the entire article and removed as much redundant material as I could. I do agree that it could use more pruning that just that. I'll also try to find some good sources to add to the article when I make the time for it. As regards to the IP, he / she has been warned several times about the edits made to this, and other articles. TheTwoRoads (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about slamming this article with something drastic soon, to see if there is anyone who cares about it enough to kick up a fuss. I appreciate the work you have done, and thanks for keeping me from feeling like I'm talking to myself here. I didn't want to accuse anyone of not discussing changes without providing a handy spot for some of that discussion.

I think the article may be salvageable, possibly with re-titling to an appropriately narrower scope. Would you (or anyone watching this) object to moving it to "Elements and principles of interior design" or "Elements and principles of graphic design" with further pruning to fit the new title? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)