Just a little anecdotal evidence

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:13:29 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
itself contains a great deal of logical truth.

The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may, however,
sound good to those in a mental fugue.

 

[dorayme]

Seriously, however, I'm not particularly attracted to a well-engineered
vehicle with an uninspired design and neither are most consumers.

What would an example of such a vehicle be?

 

[dorayme]

That bullshit aside, design
is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.

Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?

 

[asdf]

What would an example of such a vehicle be?

Hmm... let's see now...

Landrover Defender
Toyota Landcruiser

...vehicles that look pretty ugly, but are very good at what they do. That's
why they sell to their niche in the market.

 

[dorayme]

Hmm... let's see now...

Landrover Defender
Toyota Landcruiser

..vehicles that look pretty ugly, but are very good at what they do. That's
why they sell to their niche in the market.

Lets take these two then. They are not real good in being as
efficient as they might be because their wind resistance is high
- for starters. This is the makers dispensing with a function,
not just "not attending to some pretty thing" to the eye. In fact
it is probably ugly because they did try to make it nice to the
eye! A lot of people, think they look nice.

What I wanted was a case of something that was *perfect* in its
function but ugly as hell. Ask yourself why there might be a
dearth of these. The reason lies in the deeper aethetics of a
design being fit for real use. Ugly buildings are almost
invariably ones that are badly designed function wise.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:13:29 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:


The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may, however,
sound good to those in a mental fugue.

Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that design
has no part in how a Web site works.

 

[asdf]

Lets take these two then. They are not real good in being as
efficient as they might be because their wind resistance is high
- for starters. This is the makers dispensing with a function,
not just "not attending to some pretty thing" to the eye. In fact
it is probably ugly because they did try to make it nice to the
eye! A lot of people, think they look nice.

What I wanted was a case of something that was *perfect* in its
function but ugly as hell. Ask yourself why there might be a
dearth of these. The reason lies in the deeper aethetics of a
design being fit for real use. Ugly buildings are almost
invariably ones that are badly designed function wise.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there...

Firstly, there is no such thing as "perfect" function, can we call it
"excellent function" instead?

The vehicles... those two vehicles may not be "perfect" in their function,
but they are widely regarded to be "excellent" at their intended function,
which is offroading, not slicing through the air with the greatest of ease.
For their intended function, wind resistance is irrelevant (how people use
them is not the issue).There *are* better looking 4wds, but, some would
argue that they are not as good at their intended function, since this
compromises their intrinsic utility.

Now... to your buildings analogy...

Do you think that a building designed as a bomb-proof shelter would improve
it's function by being pleasing to the eye? Do you think an oil refinery
would be more productive if it didn't have all those pesky pipes and things
spoiling the design?

Flip it the other way. I've been in plenty of 'beautiful' buildings that
don't perform their function well. Buildings with too much glass that
require massive airconditioning for example. Looks good, get's hot as hell
in summer.

Here's something that is close to perfect in it's function but ugly as hell:
a 79c tin opener from the supermarket. It opens tins. It's ugly.

Another: A spanner. It's ugly, but it sure gets those bolts loosened.

So let's get back on topic:

In designing a website (unless you are producing a work of art, rather than
a work of business communication), it's form MUST follow it's function and
content. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

In most cases, the content of a website is a pile of text and graphics, and
yes, more often than not, a generic 'liquid' template fits the bill more
than adequately.

But fact is... if your client doesn't like it, you won't get paid. Simple as
that, regardless of the pros and cons of whatever layout is chosen. Sure, we
can argue the case, but in the end we can only guide our clients. They
ultimately chose, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:37:34 GMT
dorayme scribed:

What would an example of such a vehicle be?

Hard to say. Perhaps an Edsel? (-or XY...)

People will mention cars like the VW Beetle or Range Rover, but they're not
them. Those were adequately engineered and pleasingly-designed in their
day and became "classics" over the years. Also, "pleasingly-designed" does
not have to mean things like graceful curves or symmetry, either.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:15:57
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that design
has no part in how a Web site works.

I'm not saying design has _no part in how_ a web site "works", I'm saying
design is not _how_ it works. You changed the meaning of the word "works"
in your reply.

The design of a web site certainly affects how it "works" both by its
ergonomic and aesthetic layout for appeal, and by the ease and accuracy of
its dynamics for functionality. But how _this functionality works_ is a
non-design issue.

Steve Jobs was just putting on airs. The quote is bullshit.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:42 GMT
dorayme scribed:

Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?

Is that supposed to be a question?

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:15:57
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:


I'm not saying design has _no part in how_ a web site "works", I'm saying
design is not _how_ it works. You changed the meaning of the word "works"
in your reply.

I changed nothing. It appears that the disconnect is in our definition
of "works". Read on...

The design of a web site certainly affects how it "works" both by its
ergonomic and aesthetic layout for appeal, and by the ease and accuracy of
its dynamics for functionality. But how _this functionality works_ is a
non-design issue.

I read "works" in the context of the quote to apply to information
architecture, navigation scheme, content flow both within and across
pages, among other things -- indeed, what you've outlined above. These
aspects are all part of, and involve, design. In this sense, design does
indeed have to do with HOW a Web site "works" for the user.

Were you to say that how the functionality is IMPLEMENTED is not design,
I might be more apt agree with you.

Steve Jobs was just putting on airs. The quote is bullshit.

To each his own.

 

[dorayme]

Do you think that a building designed as a bomb-proof shelter would improve
it's function by being pleasing to the eye?

Even to ask me such a thing shows it would be hard for us to
discuss this matter - so little are you on my wave length. How
the thing looks is a consequence of its functional design. All
your claims of ugliness are suspect to me <g> I think spanners
are one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen on earth. I
have them on my desk, I twiddle and make like a sword swallower
with them (closest to eating them you see...).

The colour of the paint on a car is about the closest
non-functional, mere morsel to the eye type thing and even then
you have to be careful. In Australia, a well designed car (no
air-conditioning for reasons that should be obvious these days)
would hardly be so if it was not white or highly reflective of
the sun...

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:37:34 GMT
dorayme scribed:


Hard to say. Perhaps an Edsel? (-or XY...)

People will mention cars like the VW Beetle or Range Rover, but they're not
them. Those were adequately engineered and pleasingly-designed in their
day and became "classics" over the years. Also, "pleasingly-designed" does
not have to mean things like graceful curves or symmetry, either.

So what quite is the purpose of your post?

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:42 GMT
dorayme scribed:


Is that supposed to be a question?

Yes, it is a question. What bit of it, old boy, are you having
trouble with?

 

[dorayme]

To each his own.

I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
copyrighted.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
copyrighted.

hehehehe

 

[Kevin Scholl]

I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
copyrighted.

*snicker*

 

[Travis Newbury]

Nonsense.
Microsoft invested peanuts ($150 million IIRC) in Apple. At the time,
Apple still had *billions* in the bank to fall back on.

Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
the Amiga went. The Mac use to have one HUGE advantage with graphics
and video editing. That advantage is now gone. Microsoft wants Mac
to stick around so they are not called a monopoly.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:38:22
GMT dorayme scribed:

So what quite is the purpose of your post?

To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and engineering
- and it takes both to make a good one.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:24:19
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

I changed nothing. It appears that the disconnect is in our definition
of "works". Read on...


I read "works" in the context of the quote to apply to information
architecture, navigation scheme, content flow both within and across
pages, among other things -- indeed, what you've outlined above. These
aspects are all part of, and involve, design. In this sense, design
does indeed have to do with HOW a Web site "works" for the user.

Were you to say that how the functionality is IMPLEMENTED is not
design, I might be more apt agree with you.

Okay. Perhaps that distinction is a better way to express the idea.

To each his own.

Sure it is. And it's not only wrong, it's simple-minded. But I'm sure
it sounded good to the target audience when first issued.