[jrowen]

I feel like this is actually quite a bold claim. Just within this thread there is wild disagreement. The term “design” is so insanely broad. There are Dieter Rams-style principles of functional objects that have sort of “won out”, but with graphical design, it’s essentially art, it’s all so subjective.

[crazygringo]

I don't think so. Nobody disagrees that a brighter color draws more attention than a subdued one, or that the eye is drawn to a heavier weight before a lighter one. Nobody disagrees that it looks more balanced to have the round parts of letters like "O" and S" extend slightly beyond the baseline and cap line, beyond where the bottom and top os "E" and "B" are. These, and 200 (?) other things, are the basic principles that everyone learns and plays with -- that graphic designers are taught. It's the vocabulary of design, and is universal. "Design theory" is one way of referring to it -- theory of color, shape, etc. The things that make things clear or confusing. It's really quite objective, in the sense of what looks pleasing and balanced to the eye. It doesn't appear to be cultural.

Schools of design have more to do with values and purpose, and following fads and trends and all that. Maybe that's what you're referring to? They can have their own "theories". But when people talk about "design theory" they're usually talking about the basic principles/vocabulary of design.

[jrowen]

> Nobody disagrees that a brighter color draws more attention than a subdued one, or that the eye is drawn to a heavier weight before a lighter one.

But they disagree on which of those is "good design" in which context. For example, some want bold colors loudly distinguishing app icons, some want a consistent minimal theme (idk the state of desktop customization today but it was pretty wild in the early 2000s).

> Nobody disagrees that it looks more balanced to have the round parts of letters like "O" and S" extend slightly beyond the baseline and cap line, beyond where the bottom and top os "E" and "B" are.

I'm not totally sure what this means but it sounds incredibly dubious to state as fact and there are no doubt heavily used fonts that don't do it.

For virtually any "universal" graphic design "rule" there will be successful examples of things that did not follow it. There will be a camp that disagrees with it. They also change and drift, they're relative to time and place, nothing is really static. There can be inherent value in explicitly doing something as a counterpoint or juxtaposition to a dominant trend.

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't learn the vocabulary and the body of accumulated experience, but there's no way you're going to make a universally right and objectively correct decision.

[crazygringo]

> But they disagree on which of those is "good design" in which context.

Which is why I literally said there are different schools of design.

> I'm not totally sure what this means but it sounds incredibly dubious to state as fact and there are no doubt heavily used fonts that don't do it.

If you don't know one of the most elemental rules of typography, then maybe you should look it up rather than doubt it.

> I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't learn the vocabulary and the body of accumulated experience, but there's no way you're going to make a universally right and objectively correct decision.

You're missing the distinction I made between basic principles of design, and schools of design. Nowhere did I claim that there are "correct" "decisions". But there are principles of design that are, in fact, universal.