Notes on the Synthesis of Form

By Christopher Alexander

The earliest chapters of this book are the easiest to apply in my everyday design work. I found the latter half to be a little too abstract for me to understand.

View on Amazon

Three concepts for every designer

1. Form
2. Context
3. Fit

Any time we have a design problem, we have some part of the whole world that we have decided we are going to create or change. This is the form.

You arrive at a good form by looking at the context that the form is supposed to fit into. Content refers to the activities that people are trying to do. What are people trying to do, and how does the form fit with that?

The fit is the judgment of success between the form and the context.

The form is the thing you can actually control. The context puts demands on the form. "Fitness" is the word used to describe the relationship between the form and the context.

How to tell when the fit between form and context is good

It's easier to spot bad fit than good fit. So, you could say that good fit is the absence of bad fit. What you should be trying to do is neutralize the forces that cause misfit.

It is through misfit that the problem originally brings itself to our attention.

Alexander uses an example of sorting through a jar of buttons for buttons that have certain attributes. In this situation, what the mind actually ends up doing is identifying those buttons which don't have the desired attributes. You don't start by looking for any buttons that match the first; instead you eliminate buttons that don't match. It's easier to spot the misfits.

Because they are expressed in negative form they are specific, and tangible enough to talk about.

You could use this concept when you are asked to define design requirements. When you do this you may begin by writing a list of things that the product should do. But that list is potentially endless when it lacks boundaries. What you can do instead is focus on the requirements from a negative point of view, which makes it easier to pick a finite set. Which things are most likely to go wrong? Where are the potential misfits? What outcomes are you trying to avoid?

With this in mind, I should like to recommend that we should always expect to see the process of achieving good fit between two entities as a negative process of neutralizing the incongruities, or irritants, or forces, which cause the misfit.

Logic in design and the loss of innocence

You can talk about design as an intuitive process, one that's too deep and mysterious to try and understand. You can also talk about design logically and state the reasons behind your design decisions. When you design intuitively and don't bother to justify your work on logical grounds you remain innocent. Presenting your work in a logical picture brings about a loss of that innocence. A logical picture is much easier to criticize than a vague picture since the assumptions it is based on are brought out into the open. It is more precise, and therefore can be discussed.

Whether we stand for or against pure intuition as a method, we must do so for reasons which can be discussed.

Reference

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. United Kingdom: Harvard University Press.