The TLDR version? It’s a way of doing things.

Here’s the long version:

Design, as a Thing

The Larger Concept

Design itself is a bit like the wind: You can’t see it, but you see and experience the effects of it.

In this sense, design exists as a concept that explains the reason behind why something exists the way it does. You see this with descriptors like the design of a recipe, the design of the universe, or the design of the building.

The truth is that design exists everywhere around us; It exists in recipe development, in architectural blueprints, and mobile app screens, but also in technical backend systems, and simply, in the way you laid out your living space.

Design can range from being highly sophisticated (like how airports move your checked baggage from the check-in counter, onto the correct a plane, and then into the correct baggage claim conveyor belt) to something done in passing (like picking out your outfit of the day).

It’s an abstract concept, but I’ve come to find that the common thread behind all the definitions you’ll find online, and all the explanations you’ll hear, is the existence of intentional specificity.

Intentional specificity means that on some level, there is a rhyme and reason as to why decisions are being made the way they are.

Specificity

It’s important to note that specificity can happen on different levels on the macro-micro spectrum. Essentially, how specific someone gets can be relative, depending on whatever is appropriate. What I mean by that, is that you can design on an abstract level, and also at a specific level.

Let’s look at getting dressed as an example:

So… it’s the morning and if you haven’t picked your clothes out already, then you’re standing in front of them about to grab things to wear.

Here are your options:

A) You grab and go with something to cover your body at complete random.

B) You grab and go with a top and bottom that “goes together” in some way.

C) You take a moment to think about what you want to wear, and figure out what top, bottom, and accessories go together.

D) You channel your inner Tan France and look at how textures, colors, scale, tone, and cut of clothing pieces can be combined with adjacent features like makeup and hair styling to pull something together.

If you take Option B, you’re using a microlens of specificity to make your decision. You’re not concerned about the details; You just need something on you.

If you take Option D, you’re using a macro lens of specificity. You’re concerned about how all the different details can come together.

If you take Option C, you’re somewhere in the middle on the macro-micro spectrum. You’re looking at the details, but not getting enveloped in them.

If you take Option A, you’re a robot without a subconscious and you’re here to learn our ways to inform Skynet and take over the world… Just kidding, but kinda not. As long as you’re human, you're showing bias towards something regardless of whether or not you realize it. In this case, I’d clump this group with Option B.

In all of these options, choices were made... so does that mean designing is as simple as making a choice?

Nope!

Options B, C and D can be argued to be examples of designing an outfit; Option A is debatable. The difference is the intention behind the choices made, and the curation of the available options.

It’s worth pointing out that Option A could be an example of intentionally designing an outfit if it was a purposeful meta-approach to it. Meta-explorations usually break the rules, by turning the world upside down, but more on that later.

The Why Behind Choices

The why behind a choice solidifies the distinction between a deliberate, intentional decision and one made “just because”. Something done at random is not a deliberate choice unless of course, it’s a deliberate at random choice. (Yeah, it gets trippy.)

Let’s look back at the getting dressed scenario discussed above.

Here, every option lead to a decision being made. However, Options B-D considered their options; Each path had to consider different sets of variables in their decision-making process, which forced varying levels of deliberating. For example:

Option B had three requirements:

• A top

• A bottom

• That they match

Option D had seven+ requirements:

• Texture

• Color

• Scale / Proportions

• Tone

• Style Cut

• Makeup

• Hair Styling

By deliberating, someone is defining the rationale behind why they are making the choices they are making; If this leads to a final decision, then this makes their final choice an intentional one.

This is where the intentional part of “intentional specificity” comes in.

Intentional Specificity

In our scenario, intentional specificity was achieved by making deliberate choices on a curated level of specificity: We made choices based on how much choice we wanted to have. For the larger concept of design, this is mirrored by all the different disciplines under design, with each option being a different discipline.

Each discipline has a distinct lens that sits somewhere on the spectrum from macro to micro. In general, the closer to visual design you get, the more detailed you’re getting; Likewise, the closer to experience design, the more abstract the concepts are.

Regardless, the mindset is the same: To make intentional choices, that make sense for the band of specificity we’re in, to achieve our goal.

Sometimes, that’s designing your outfit of the day; Sometimes, that’s defining what new product to create.

—

I’d love to read what you guys think about this! Comment below or reach out directly – I’d love to chat!

Come back next week as we continue Design 101, and look at what all the different disciplines are, and how they relate to one another!