In certain contexts, such as wayfinding, signage and revealing a history or encouraging social interaction and intrigue, would you say that being invisible is actually a detriment to the intention of the design – i.e. existing for being noticed, and yet becoming invisible?

I would agree to an extent, i would also add that Great design may not be noticeable until someone points it out to you, my personal favorites in design are elements which are not immediately noticeable, which may show some wit, or humor in the design.

jamie & Lion

I do agree that there are some grey areas, particularly in the area of so called ‘Art Directed’ sites and blog posts – where the design is equally as important as the content. But it also sends the message that good design isn’t about using a ‘cool’ font or rounded, glossy, reflected buttons either.

I used to agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, but now I don’t think it’s quite accurate. Yes, most of design should be invisible, aimed as it is as helping users achieve a task – be that fill a form, drive a car, squeeze a lemon – but design can also be successful by calling attention to itself. I think of something like Juicy Salif – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_squeezer#As_a_decorative_object – that is very much a piece of design, albeit not a functional one. It causes us to question the role of aesthetics in our products, our concepts of beauty versus utility, and so on. Of course, some might simply label this art. But I think it is so tightly related to a daily object (even if it functions poorly as one) that it doesn’t for me meet the criterion of “ars gratia artis”.