The ‘IxD Bauhaus’ – what happens next?

The interaction design community is witnessing an important revolution – an ‘IxD Bauhaus’ of sorts.

Occasionally, amidst the rapid rise and fall of trends, fashion and fancy, we are faced with true revolution: paradigm shifts that throw out excess baggage of some kind and usher in new ways of thinking and seeing altogether. The catch is that you need to have the benefit of hindsight to truly measure their effectiveness. With this in mind, I believe that the interaction design community is witnessing an important revolution — an ‘IxD Bauhaus’ of sorts.

I’d like to start with architecture and its recent history, and then compare it with current changes in the way interaction design is being conceived and made. Lastly I’d like to discuss the effects of such a revolution in architecture, and provoke thought on what the implications might be for the design of user experience.

Remembering the Bauhaus:  a call to end ornamentation in the built environment

The Bauhaus Movement (1918-1933) was based on a German revival of a purer, honest design representation in architecture, art, typography and product design. Its philosophy celebrated an austere functionalism with little or no ornamentation. It advocated a use of industrial materials and inter-disciplinary methods and techniques. The  Bauhaus aesthetic and beliefs were influenced by and derived from techniques and materials employed especially in industrial fabrication and manufacture. Artists included Paul Klee, Wassilli Kandinsky, and Feininger. Architects and designers included Mies Van der Rohe, Phillip Johnson, Walter Gropius, Lazlso Moholy-Nagy and several others.

Walter Gropius who at Columbia University (March, 1961) clarified the intention of the Bauhaus saying

“The Bauhaus was not concerned with the formulation of timebound, stylistic concepts, and its technical methods were not ends in themselves. It was created to show how a multitude of individuals, willing to work concertedly but without losing their identity, could evolve a kinship of expression in their response to the challenges of the day. Its aim was to give a basic demonstration of how to maintain unity in diversity, and it did this with the materials, techniques, and form concepts germane to its time. It was this method of approach that was revolutionary…”

This movement was a true revolution because prior to its time, the built environment had bloated in stimuli, caused by an excess of decor and ‘pastry-work’. As early as 1908, the Austrian architect Adolf Loos had said that architectural ornament was criminal, and his essay on that topic would become foundational to Modernism and eventually trigger the careers of Le CorbusierWalter GropiusAlvar Aalto,Mies van der Rohe and Gerrit Rietveld and other Bauhaus masters. The Modernists embraced these equations—form follows function, ornament is crime—as moral principles, and they celebrated industrial artifacts like steel water towers and other ‘Machine Age’ construction as brilliant and beautiful examples of plain, simple design integrity.

The Bauhaus liberated construction from the excessive need for ornamentation as a means of expression, be it in art, typography, graphic design or architecture. One of the main objectives of the Bauhaus was to unify art, craft, and technology. It freed itself from the shackles of historical ‘styling’ and attempted to create a fresh order of primary principles. Such radical thinking enabled a celebration of the purity and honesty of structure and looking for truth in things be it on a 2-dimensional canvas or a building. Anyone who’s marvelled at the Barcelona Pavillion or the Barcelona Chair (both designed by Van der Rohe) has experienced the essence of what the movement stood for.

The Bauhaus’s philosophy was that form should follow function and all other distractions and decoration should be avoided. It wanted space to be experience for its purity, stripped off all the ‘dirt’ and clutter of decor. This is something that’s been happening recently in the field of visual interaction design.

Cantilevered chair by Marcel Breuer

What’s the ‘IxD Bauhaus’ about?

If you’re the kind of interaction designer who starts getting a gradient-itch or delights in making buttons look like glass – think again. The times they are a-changin’.

There was a time when our sense of ‘modern’ in the user-interface was driven by concepts like these –

Concepts for the Windows Media Player by frog

Examine the words used to describe such a concept – “… a rich palette of visual surfaces for the media player and taskbars, giving XP a unique, consistent design language that challenges the traditional digital media experience. Analog-style, “rubberized” buttons on the skin of Windows Media Player offer classic, intuitive navigation and avoid the hyper-technical feel of other online players. Brushed aluminum textures, rich colors, and dimensional lighting add a satisfying tactile quality to the user’s online interactions, lending the experience a sense of the real.” The term often used to describe this kind of UI is skeumorphic. If pre-industrial revolution construction suffered from ‘nature-envy’, skeumorphic visual user experiences suffer from ‘object-envy’.

To quote an explanation from FastCompany’s article on it – Skeuomorphic apps take pains to reference or mimic physical, real-world features in their user interfaces. Apple is the current king of this design style, enshrining skeuomorphics in its Human Interface Guidelines: “Whenever possible, add a realistic, physical dimension to your application. The more true to life your application looks and behaves, the easier it is for people to understand how it works and the more they enjoy using it.”

Skeumorphic UI

Skeumorphic UI

It’s tough to compete with a force as dominant as Apple, in the realm of beautiful user-experiences, but the release of the Windows Phone 7 design guideline (codenamed: Metro), an impending revolution has been made official. The new IxD Bauhaus’ basic principle is that ‘Form follows Data’.

The Windows Phone 'Metro' Design Language

Windows Phone’s new design language is inspired by print in the digital age. Let’s examine the words used by their team (extracted from Mike Kruzeniski’s blog) to describe their UI design principles –

  • Clean, Light, Open and Fast
  • Alive in Motion
  • Celebrate Typography
  • Content, Not Chrome
  • Authentically Digital

One could almost use these words to describe Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavillion, for example –

  • Clean, Light, Open and Fast (Open space, pure exposed beautiful material)
  • Alive in Motion (through albeit static sweeping horizontal lines in the design language)
  • Celebrate Typography (celebrating structure – making it boldly present)
  • Content, Not Chrome (no decor, just beautiful clean spaces)
  • Authentically Digital (authentically physical)

Visual motion in the Barcelona Pavillion

There are so many examples that are beginning to exemplify this philosophy, some better than others. Examples of this ‘IxD Bauhaus’ (to name a few) are –

Flipboard for iPad, The Puma Phone,

Flipboard and Puma

The Fluid App for iPad and iPhone, Wired app for iPad

Fluid/Wired Apps

Some design their visual interaction with fiercely reductionist vigor. Others still show hints of a gradient itch. The revolution however, is definitely underway. Increasingly, our apps and OS’s hint on letting us focus on our lives and tasks and ‘getting the job done’ by focussing on ‘content rather than chrome’.

Increasingly, our apps and OS’s hint on letting us focus on our lives and tasks and ‘getting the job done’ by focussing on ‘content rather than chrome’.

This is an exciting and most welcome change in visual interaction design. It is also a huge challenge for designers, content-providers and business groups.  Inorder to see the revolution thrive and prosper – all these interest groups need to work even more closely. We need to learn lessons from history and not make the same mistakes.

The Good, the Bad, and the Boxy: What can visual interaction designers learn from the Bauhaus?

The point of this article is not to acknowledge revolution. That’s been done already and perhaps more eloquently. This stream of thought would like to probe the consequences of such a ‘reductivist’ philosophy and draw parallel lessons from history.

The Bauhaus movement had immeasurable value in shaping modern architecture and design to what it is today, but it also faced severe criticism. After living in them, or owning Bauhaus furniture – several found them to be too impersonal, sterile and devoid of any emotional value. All houses started to look vaguely similar, offices became cubicle graveyards while Bauhaus masterpiece-inspired furniture design knock-offs looked tacky and boring. Since the moved was fuelled by World War II and an industrial wave of mass production it killed ‘craft’ and ensured a sameness in the objects we started seeing around us. This was both good and bad.

Jacques Tati’s ‘Playtime’ (1967) was a brilliant cinematic critique of the ‘glass and steel’ forest that modern life had become as a result of the Bauhaus.

Jacques Tati's Playtime

Lets quickly summarize why the Bauhaus was important for design history, but was frequently criticized in people’s lives –

  • Not all material is worthy of celebration, not all content is beautiful too.
    The Bauhaus movement was a huge challenge not only to designers but also to the people providing engineering, construction and material services. Everyone needed to up their game in order to make a beautiful chair, poster or building. Any compromise in quality ensured that material/content was revealed as poor in quality and tacky in appearance.In today’s times business owners, content-providers and other interest groups need to do some serious soul searching to ensure that their content alone will carry their online experience through? Just like in the Bauhaus movement, bad quality wood looked tolerable when it was decorated or concealed. The moment one stripped them off decor – it exposed nothing but ugliness.
  • Beauty is in the details, construction, and structure.Barcelona pavilion column detailA bad visual experience will now be judged, not by the beautiful ‘glassiness’ of its buttons, but by its inherent structure and little details that are made to manifest from inside out. Interaction designers and developers alike need to collaborate more closely to ensure that experiences are built inside-out, rather than designers applying ‘skins’ to a detached user-experience development platform. Wireframing experiences in close collaboration with developers and content-providers, detailing points of interaction without applying visual clutter will suddenly become a bottom-line in interaction design.
  • Ensuring familiarity without losing brand value and character.
    Visual interaction designers will now be faced with the stiff challenge of creating identity, character and uniqueness without the easier palette of ‘decor’. A failure to create differences could lead to familiar ‘Bauhaus problems’ of sameness and monotony.
  • Industrial processes drove the Bauhaus, software development processes are driving the ‘IxD Bauhaus’.
    Mass production, industrial fabrication, pre-cast components and material technology spurred the Bauhaus movement to fruition in its time. Today, we need to acknowledge that the reductionist IxD revolution is being caused by a larger understanding that ‘apps’ might be the way forward in a ‘Cloud’ computing world. Designers, engineers and developers would need to ensure that pre-cast components were designed well, almost as ‘toolboxes’ in the design of user experiences so that parts were repetitive without being too rigid. Visual interaction designers would need to think big and small simultaneously – keeping overall architecture in mind while resolving smaller details.
  • When all facades are glass, its hard to know where the door is
    Mind the Glass DoorKnowing when and how to provide cues for interaction becomes even more crucial for the design of a good user experience. Windows Phone does this through minimal, yet intuitive animations that delight and inform users. Other app-experiences and platforms need to think of their own ways of solving this problem. Since buttons need no longer look like buttons, designers need to ensure clarity in design language using color, typography, or other material to differentiate interactive elements from static ones.

Conclusion: How much of less is more?

The main question here is not when or where the ‘IxD Bauhaus’ movement began. Or if it exists at all.

It is more important to recognize this reductionist behavior as a refreshingly welcome change in how we plan and design our visual interactive experiences. While we can no longer conceal mediocre interaction design behind the facade of decoration and fluff, several questions remain unanswered. How much can we reduce, without compromising on usability , cognition and emotion? How much can we strip experiences of cues (formerly done through decor) without making them sterile?

Even though the movement is in its early days in mobile, table and desktop visual interaction design, its implications will be broad and deep, regardless of commercial performance. A lot of the movement’s success depends on how users accept such a reductionist approach to visual interactive experiences where there are many hidden cues and authentic digital behavior. It remains to be seen how users respond to the lack of familiarity in the new UX metaphors that were formerly mimicking the physical world.

We all like personalization, customization and a feeling of ownership of the objects and services that we interact with and consume. The Windows Phone Design Team has done a great job of showing the user their relevant content on an interactive start-screen experience. How will others respond, without setting off another clone assembly line that mimics rather than acts authentic? While personally praying for the success of such a school of  thought and action, there are hurdles that we need to be clear about and prepare ourselves for that would rush to quash the revolution at the first signs of duress.

If the Bauhaus movement in the early part of last century failed to resonate with users for reasons that we’ve discussed – can we as designers prepare ourselves to meet the challenges ahead?


Marcel Breuer chair from Wikipedia
Skeumorphic UI from Fastcodesign
Concept sketches from frogdesign
Barcelona Pavillion from Travel with Frank Gehry
Barcelon Pavillion details from Sketchucation

Rahul Sen

When not immersed in comics or pondering future Worlds, Rahul is an Senior Interaction Designer at R/GA in New York City. His cross-disciplinary work involves the design of compelling user experiences for a variety of projects. He has worked for the past ten years in theatre, architecture and interaction design. Having worked and wandered in Sweden, India, USA, France and Germany, he's still eager to learn more! Rahul is tweeting @rahulsen79.

31 comments on this article

  1. Pingback: Mobile user experience in use and ornament « – Matt Edgar

  2. Pingback: Putting people first » The Interaction Design ‘Bauhaus’

  3. Pingback: 交互设计领域的包豪斯运动 | Na58

  4. Pingback: - WebDroid

  5. I thought I was misreading when I saw Apple being compared to pre-Bauhaus and Microsoft to Bauhaus. Nothing has ever been as bloated as Microsoft or as elegant and easy to use as Apple…this is always cited as it’s strength. Curious.

  6. Pingback: Design Is Not The Goal | rt Strategy - Brand Transformation Agency™ | Kelowna Marketing Agency | Creative Services - Branding - Web Design - Advertising - Social Media - Public Relations

  7. Denjell on

    First, the bauhaus school opened in 1919 not 1918. Second, it was based upon premises of the international style to which dada should be counted. Third, le Courbusier was not a member of the Bauhaus, which your sentence seems to imply. Fourth, in and of itself the bauhaus didn’t become a movement until it was banned in berlin and its student body and teaching staff fled germany and the nazi regime’s oppression.
    From a design standpoint, I do not feel that it is fair to say that because the windows mobile design is minimal and uses squares that this equates to bauhaus design. I mean really, how can the data behind the marketplace app be a blue square that is the same size as the blue square for the outlook app? This is poor information design because at first glance the only differentiation is in the position on the screen – and this is not a viable or honest example of form following data, as you write.
    From the standpoint of interaction with industry, I feel that the open source and open hardware movements have more in common with bauhaus than windows ever will regardless of how windows is packaged, styled or presented, and the notion of using familiar metaphors to negotiate navigation is an inheritance from the international style.

    the with walter gropius’ founding of the school in weimar. It was less an act of ignoring opulence than it was about

  8. Denjell on

    By the way, that chair is also not by breuers.

  9. Thanks for your article, it’s interesting to see how you choose the concept of Bauhaus to explain a new design language and WP7 refers back to the International Style to create it’s style.

    I’m all in favor of a new clean style of digital design, but there are some good reasons that the current web looks like it looks (and why Bauhaus and the International style failed are still challenged):

    1) It is in contradiction to capitalists needs: It’s very hard to create strong brands within Modernist design, it’s hard to remember one site from another, when both of them have a very clean look. (This was done on purpose, to be international and independent of fashion trends is what Bauhaus set out to accomplish)
    2) It is in contradiction to consumer demands. Most people like cozy, warm designs, which remember them of the old times. Minimalism comes across as cold, businesslike and sterile, not that place where you would want to hang out.
    3) It contradiction with learned behavior. As Denjell pointed out, to make buttons look like plain squares, throws away years of learned behavior and expectations on how buttons look and what they do.

    Nevertheless I think it’s our duty as designers to aim for a more beautiful and truthful world (a constant battle against ugliness as Vignelli would say) and we should set out to overcome the three challenges stated. Nevertheless we have to prepare ourselves for a life-long battle against ugliness (represented as leather buttons). Then again, what else can you do.

  10. Pingback: 交互设计领域的包豪斯运动 | 爱范儿: 拇指资讯小众讨论

  11. Thank you for commenting! Am glad if it provoked some thought and criticism…

    @Marjorie –
    As an ardent Mac user, I agree that traditionally Mac OS had the upper hand and were setting the trend. Windows was fat, ugly and bloated – and 2 years ago, nobody would have dared challenge this notion. However in recent times, the release of Windows Phone and Windows 7 have started reversing this trend and I sought to address this. I still use and love Apple products, but find it annoying how much they rely on superficial skeumorphism to make ‘good’ user experiences rather than digging deeper and making personal and more intelligent experiences. I think this is the kind of innovation Apple started showing the World a few years ago, but have fallen behind.

    @Sjors – I love your feedback and the mention of the International Style is factually accurate too. The latter style probably had a great role in shaping the Bauhaus, though they didn’t occur intentionally as movements. We look back in hindsight and call them that. I used the term ‘Bauhaus’ since it (to the best of my knowledge) was a term that defined a Revolution – a return to first principles. Not Art Nouveau, nor the International Style – which were very very connected and important movements. Important movements that shaped a revolution when the context was right.
    I also agree that minimalism and reductivism are always desired by designers seeking purity in experiences. People often fall back on familiarity, ‘fuzziness and warmth’ etc. and that’s what I’m curious to see will happen in the IxD realm. The Post-Modernist approach if one may call it that. I remember the state of decay that Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye is in now (when I last remember visiting it). They’re immensely important monuments, but people find it hard to live in them. Aesthetically people find it hard to relate, functionally they don’t work as well (stairs without handrails frighten people!) In terms of identity when looking at our glass and steel jungle – they all end up looking like clones when reproduced. I’ll call it the ‘Helveticization’ of our World which begs another question – how do we ‘best’ define identity? That’s a whole new debate of course – do we need to resort to quirky fonts to describe identity or can Helvetica ever be the answer. Just thinking out loud.

    @Denjell – thanks for pointing out all the factual errors in the article. Must say I missed the two pipes in the Breuer chair which don’t make it the Breuer chair. Will check if I can change it, but in the meanwhile it’s a nice accidental example of what happens when weak copies take over an archetype and when careless authors (like me!) are too focussed in getting an abstract idea verbalized.

    I think you misunderstand the reason why I’m connecting metaphors here. If the Bauhaus wanted space to be authentically spatial, the IxD Bauhaus wants screen based user experiences to be authentically digital, rather than mimic a physical 3D World. I’m not judging, merely observing. I do NOT think the blue or colored, flat squares on Windows Phone alone equate it to the Bauhaus. I’m referring to deeper attempts in user experience design that make it more personal, relevant and connected rather than resort to graphic skeumorphism (which I see similar to doors that look like forests in buildings). Its an attempt on Windows Phone’s part, and I’m merely reflecting on it without being judgemental. As I mentioned to Sjor, I believe there is and will always be a difference in how designers perceive ‘good design’ versus users. Apart from historical movement issues, Philip Johnson’s Glass House is a monument, but very few would like to live in such a building. However, I’m not sure if you’ve seen or used the Windows Phone but there are many examples of reduction of chrome in favor of personalized content that provoked the ‘Bauhaus’ comparison. Of course, arduino, processing, the open-source movement are all playing a very different and equally important role in shaping another revolution but I’m not sure if historically I’d agree that it fell into the Bauhaus slot of ‘form follows function’. I’d say it was more a IxD Craft movement. I might be wrong here…but I look forward to hearing your feedback.

    Thanks for reading and sharing your views! 🙂 Happy Easter to you all!

  12. Pingback: IxD Bauhaus and other associative thoughts | Interaction Design Umeå

  13. Pingback: 交互设计领域的包豪斯运动 -

  14. DM Cook on

    Very interesting comparison. It is strange to compare Microsoft to Bauhaus since their design motif has always been gaudy, overly-colorful and often illegible interface design. Until Windows Phone 7, of course. It’s a dramatic and beautiful change, though it does seem strange to me to go towards a more “late-80s” feel as the thrust of the 21st century.

    I find Apple’s design to be much more cold and sterile (in a hardware sense) than I find Microsoft’s software to represent the Bauhaus. After all, iTunes aside, Apple’s software rarely has more than a few areas of focus at any one time, while Microsoft’s software has always tended towards oversharing and over-notifying.

    Still, I’ve been impressed by the foresight of WinPho7. Now let’s just see if they sell any.

  15. Pingback: Läsvärt – Bauhaus rörelsen, Metro och krom « Peter Wissingers Mobilblogg

  16. Pingback: Links for May 16th | jonathan stegall: creative tension

  17. Pingback: » The ‘IxD Bauhaus’ – what happens next? Johnny Holland – Its all about interaction » Blog Archive « Patrik Vågeheds blogg

  18. Pingback: New trend in mobile UX: Windows Phone « Xun and Interaction Design

  19. Pingback: 设计不是目的,需求才是 - 艾睿科技 iRealBlog

  20. Pingback: 设计不是目的,需求才是 | Larens Design Notes

  21. Pingback: My slides from the IxD Bauhaus in Seattle | Rahul Sen: Future-Sense

  22. Pingback: Seeing the Future Through the Users Eyes [The Conference] | Media Evolution

  23. Pingback: Обзор свежих материалов, апрель-май 2011 « Юрий Ветров. Проектирование интерфейсов и управление проектами

  24. Pingback: Обзор свежих материалов, апрель-май 2011 - Бламаблум

  25. “The Bauhaus movement had immeasurable value in shaping modern architecture and design to what it is today, but it also faced severe criticism.” – So glad it made it’s mark.

  26. Pingback: The Interaction Design Bauhaus « CSS Lounge ⊗ CSS Gallery

  27. Andrew R on

    I saw Rahul’s presentation of this at Web Directions. I think this article would be well embellished with some slides from that presentation. Raul made a stronger case for the skeuomorphism vrs IxD Bauhaus being an echo of the Bauhaus as a response to design movements like Art Nouveau and Arts & Crafts.

    It is important to remember that Bauhaus and modernism were largely academic philosophies when they were first conceived. In the 50’s there were number of radical technical and social changes arising in the post war consumer economy that enabled these design principles to find wide spread relevance. IxD Bauhaus is still in the philosophical or pre-relevance phase; at the moment the debate seems academic. Just as romantic craft styles remained viable approaches before the Wars so Skeuomorphism and object-envy are still viable today. The current challenges around Web 1 & 2 activities can still be reasonable be meet using hang-over styles and design principles based on screens, tabs, buttons, and pages type metaphors. However, the web of things along with the massive growth in complex data will unleash a new environment with very different problems to be solved. Problems which cannot be solved with old skool thinking; when this happens IxD Bauhaus will find relevance.

    Rahul, mate you’re a thinker before your time.

  28. Pingback: Twitted by acolostico

  29. Pingback: The ‘IxD Bauhaus’ – what happens next? #design #ixd #bauhaus |

  30. Simon S on

    I can see where you’re going with this.

    Much of the principles taught in the Bauhaus are still taught (in some shape or form) in schools and colleges today, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing similar changes happening in a digital capacity. The beauty of the Bauhaus “form-following-function” way of thinking is that it can so easily be translated to mean something in different disciplines of Art & Design.

    I made a similar comparison in May last year, introducing the revolution that seems to be happening on the web:

  31. Pingback: New age for Interaction Design - Ben Brewer