Just a little anecdotal evidence

[asdf]

Hmmm ... let me ask you something. You just stated above that "...design
of a web site is the way which it looks and works for the user."

How then can you claim that the quote that started this line of
discussion -- "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like.
Design is how it works." -- is nonsense?

Back to the Jobs quote...

Let's think of the single most 'market penetrative', or 'recognisably
"Apple"' product to date: the iPod..

Sure... it's expensive, sure it's just yet another MP3 player... but dammit,
it's *designed well*... that's to say... it looks good, it feels good, it
feel like it works well... that's why people buy it. I guess they could save
themselves some bucks and buy the Krapola version, but would they feel good
about it?

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I'm just saying that people buy a
little into more that *just* engineering, 'cos let's face it, an iPod plays
mp3's... it costs a wallet-load, and provides much the same functionality
that I could get for 39.99 elsewhere... In fact, I can get it for free with
some cell phones. So why do people buy it?

Image. The illusion (true or otherwise) of quality. Design is (sometimes)
about the communication of 'image', about the communication of the image of
'quality'.

'Engineering' alone cannot provide this, but it MUST be present. If the iPod
didn't work, then it wouldn't have the market penetration it currently
enjoys. Similarly, if it didn't have the 'design' that it does... again, I
doubt it would be as successful...

So.... a successful website (by extrapolation of simple marketing
principles) MUST be well engineered ('cos it has to work well), but also, it
MUST be well 'designed' (it has to be appealing to the senses).

I think perhaps in this discussion people have got 'design' and
'engineering' somewhat confused. In today's marketing environment, 'design'
often means 'presented image'.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:42:28
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

I've made it clear that I believe Job's statement implies "works" as
user interaction -- a person's ability to effectively use a particular
design.

See, that's it. That's what's wrong. "Works", in general, can imply
either design OR engineering. Now, what does a web page "feel like"?
The meaning of that idiom is *how it works* in a user-interaction way -
how it "feels" to the user. Therefore, the phrase later in the quote
"how it works" only makes sense if it connotes engineering. Even were it
was a redundancy, the quote is still bogus for that reason.

Most people would read Job's statement and interpret it
exactly as I have suggested. Your argument seems to define "works" as
how something is built. How you get that from user interaction remains
a mystery.

As I said just below...

More like you're trying to rewrite them.

No, just reading what is there.

The only one being selective here is you. In no way, shape, or form am
I suggesting that design === engineering, nor have I even implied so.
But since you apparently cannot comprehend that, I'll not bother to
belabor you further.

Well, we seem to agree on the concept of design vs. engineering but not
on the import of Job's quote. So be it, and no hard feelings.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:42:28
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:


See, that's it. That's what's wrong. "Works", in general, can imply
either design OR engineering. Now, what does a web page "feel like"?
The meaning of that idiom is *how it works* in a user-interaction way -
how it "feels" to the user. Therefore, the phrase later in the quote
"how it works" only makes sense if it connotes engineering. Even were it
was a redundancy, the quote is still bogus for that reason.

And I think you are seriously over-analyzing the statement. We hear
people all the time refer to design and "look and feel" (a statement I
abhor, FWIW). With that generality in mind, "works" can (and I believe
is intended to) mean the user interaction.

As I said just below...


No, just reading what is there.


Well, we seem to agree on the concept of design vs. engineering but not
on the import of Job's quote. So be it, and no hard feelings.

Never have any hard feelings. The discussion stayed on topic, and didn't
get personal. In my mind, thats' never a bad thing.

 

[Ed Jensen]

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.

It wasn't until after I posted my message that I thought you might be
referring to Office for Mac instead. Sorry for the confusion; 99% of
the time my assumption is correct, but it's obviously not correct 100%
of the time!

And I think you're right about the reason Microsoft keeps making
Office for Mac.

 

[dorayme]

IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?

It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.[/QUOTE]

Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:

One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)

Two, everything that is a property of a particular cup is an
integral part of this cup. Is there something in Boji Design
Theory about "integrality" that you have failed to mention? An
ingredient that needs to be understood in order to understand the
rest of your treatise?

A cup could be designed without a bottom. For any number of
purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?

It is a tricky subject and you are just saying this and that and
not making a coherent whole. When you are asked a perfectly good
question, you ad hoc. "Oh that is an integral part of the cup"
without answering the question.

I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
schmuck ideas.

 

[dorayme]

Is that a fair summary?

No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.

 

[Ben C]

It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.

Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:

One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.

Some decisions can be made very quickly, like which way to hit the ball
in a game of tennis, but perhaps those are better called subconscious
rather than unconscious.

[...]

A cup could be designed without a bottom. For any number of
purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?

It is a tricky subject

[...]

One distinction between design and engineering is that design is usually
supposed to be done earlier in the process and take the form of some
kind of plan. Engineering is then a matter of filling in the details.

If you ever did woodworking at school they always made you attempt to
draw a picture of what you were going to make before sawing up any wood.
This was intended to teach the importance of design and to save wood.

The concept of design then extends to the idea of thinking more about
things rather than just dashing off the first thing that works. Hence an
iPod is said to be designed rather than merely engineered because they
thought about details such as whether it's better to have a big play
button on the front or to make play an option in a menu system three or
four levels deep.

 

[dorayme]

I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.

I was not meaning to get into the status of kinds of decisions
too heavily. My point was simple, that when we make things we
make decisions and some of these decisions are quite deliberate
and some are made automatically without any identifiable process
of thinking. And I was trying to press the distinction between
something people are calling engineering and something they are
calling design.

(But, btw anyway, <g> surely your list has an odd man out! The
last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
of some being conscious)

Some decisions can be made very quickly, like which way to hit the ball
in a game of tennis, but perhaps those are better called subconscious
rather than unconscious.

Very well then. Let us agree that there are conscious deliberate
decisions and others below consciousness or at least not
deliberate.

I will attend to the more important issue you go on to raise in a
separate post.

 

[dorayme]

It is a tricky subject

[...]

One distinction between design and engineering is that design is usually
supposed to be done earlier in the process and take the form of some
kind of plan. Engineering is then a matter of filling in the details.

If you ever did woodworking at school they always made you attempt to
draw a picture of what you were going to make before sawing up any wood.
This was intended to teach the importance of design and to save wood.

The concept of design then extends to the idea of thinking more about
things rather than just dashing off the first thing that works. Hence an
iPod is said to be designed rather than merely engineered because they
thought about details such as whether it's better to have a big play
button on the front or to make play an option in a menu system three or
four levels deep.

What is mostly missed by people who begin thinking about these
matters is a whole complete notion. To me, it simply looks like
they have forgotten to mention the elephant in the room.

What is this elephant? Let me put it simply: the sheer pleasure
of contemplating a cleverly designed object, be it a mouse trap,
a piece of software, or a chemical plant where nothing at all
apart from the functional necessities are present.

In an engineering project, engineering can be everything! There
is nothing left when the engineering is done perfectly. The final
bell on the fight for aesthetic perfection is rung at the same
time as the final bell for the fight for engineering perfection.
They are one and the same bell.

If there is a real distinction between the basic engineered no
frills product and the fancy doodle dandy consumer level finished
marketed product, it is best made *after* it is better understood
what the aesthetics of function is all about. Why would any
serious person want to base their aesthetic thinking on the
superficialities that govern the market place where the crassest
values dominate through the wallet of masses of people led and
fed by forces beyond their control?

Before we talk, assuming we ever do, about the lovely buttons or
lack of them, the lovely whiteness, etc., on iPods, just think
for a moment about the heart of functional aesthetics: the sheer
goodness and cleverness of a good and clever made object. It is
good and clever because it does what it was designed to do
perfectly. This fact is not something extraneous to its beauty.
Rather it is quite the other way around: anything more than what
it strictly needs to carry out its function is a superficial
thing and does not really deserve the name of beauty.

I will just end for now by telling you one of my pet hates - to
indicate how these ideas are not confined to mouse traps. It
makes me mad when I hear film reviewers say of terrible films,
"ah but the photography was so nice and worth going to see blah
blah" and let this influence their assessment. The film is bad
because it does not hold together as a whole, its parts and it
attributes not making a thing of beauty. Its good photography is
not a redeeming feature at all, it is, in fact, another nail in
its coffin. It is perfume that masks a decomposing dead rat.

 

[asdf]

No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.

Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO

 

[dorayme]

Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO

I had not meant to imply you were. Keep your shirt on. Let me put
it more diplomatically, asdf, I think you are adopting a
distinction that is open to serious criticism. <g>

 

[asdf]

I had not meant to imply you were. Keep your shirt on. Let me put
it more diplomatically, asdf, I think you are adopting a
distinction that is open to serious criticism. <g>

I understand your position that engineering perfection can be beautiful.

What I don't buy, however, is that it is not always the case that a
perfectly engineered piece is *necessarily* beautiful. Sure, I can
appreciate "logical" beauty, but the hoary old phrase "Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder" is still true.

For you a wrench is beautiful (as you state in a prior post). I can
appreciate the beauty of it's design, and it's fitness for purpose, but I do
not find it, as an object, intrinsically 'beautiful'.

Design (as I and many others understand it), is more than perfect
engineering. If it were not so, the world would be devoid of art (for
instance), and be a sadder place for it.

Producing a well designed and engineered piece is as much about
*communication* of an idea or style, as it is about fulfilling a functional
specification.

 

[dorayme]

I understand your position that engineering perfection can be beautiful.

What I don't buy, however, is that it is not always the case that a
perfectly engineered piece is *necessarily* beautiful. Sure, I can
appreciate "logical" beauty, but the hoary old phrase "Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder" is still true.

For you a wrench is beautiful (as you state in a prior post). I can
appreciate the beauty of it's design, and it's fitness for purpose, but I do
not find it, as an object, intrinsically 'beautiful'.

Design (as I and many others understand it), is more than perfect
engineering. If it were not so, the world would be devoid of art (for
instance), and be a sadder place for it.

Producing a well designed and engineered piece is as much about
*communication* of an idea or style, as it is about fulfilling a functional
specification.

OK. I also understand your motivation for saying what you say.
But the idea that design is more than perfect engineering needs
more than a mere list of cases to illustrate it. Most of the
things that are offered up to illustrate this distinction are
simply not perfectly well engineered objects at all. I have given
hints about this in my lunatic ravings on this subject: eg. when
I mentioned that something normally thought to be a
non-engineering thing, the colour of a car, I was pointing out
that even this could be an engineering or functional matter (see
my earlier post).

I will concede the following things to those of you who think
there is something in the engineer/design distinction: it is
possible that there could be more than one solution to an
engineering problem that is equally effective. But then it does
come down to matters of quite superficial subjective taste (I
like white, you like slightly off white). But these things are
much much rarer than most people think. And when they occur, they
are not very important and are the worst possible basis to make
the foundation of some aesthetic theory. There is usually a
functional difference between "like" products. As I said to Ben
C, lets talk about these when we have the big elephant covered.

Your idea that I am leaving out art to dry is mistaken. I did not
make the terms of this debate, these terms were dictated by
others in this ng. It is natural to consider objects that have a
use rather things that are in a strict way, useless, however
gloriously so, because the question arose in relation website
design. In particular to most website design, I believe that it
is a sad indictment of earthlings that they want so much flash
and razzle and dazzle.

Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
interested in the substantial things in an informational or
teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:13
GMT dorayme scribed:

It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.

Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:

One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)

Two, everything that is a property of a particular cup is an
integral part of this cup. Is there something in Boji Design
Theory about "integrality" that you have failed to mention? An
ingredient that needs to be understood in order to understand the
rest of your treatise?

A cup could be designed without a bottom.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup. Even
the variant of male athlete package holders have bottoms unless you wish
to be facetious and hold one at an improper attitude.

Ergo, your point "One" above is erroneous. Point "Two" is equally
malarky because a cup could have something like an insulating jacket or a
velcro strip which is not an integral part of it.

For any number of
purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?

There is no "decision". Pits may be bottomless and strippers may be
bottomless but cups can't be bottomless and still be cups.

It is a tricky subject and you are just saying this and that and
not making a coherent whole. When you are asked a perfectly good
question, you ad hoc. "Oh that is an integral part of the cup"
without answering the question.

I did answer the question. You refused to accept it. Your problem.

I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
schmuck ideas.

Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man, you
selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer interest
me.

 

[asdf]

Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
interested in the substantial things in an informational or
teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.

Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
that are trying too hard to impress. *Who* they are trying to impress is the
important point.

In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content, that is to say that the
'design' does not become the main focus (unless of course, the design *is*
the message- this is sometimes the case... think of a photographic studio or
rock band for instance, where the design is largely the message).

But even within this fairly tight design spec, there is myriad scope for
creativity by the 'designer'. Even at the basic design level of selection of
colours and fonts, and the 'layout' of the page, there are innumerable
possibilities to enhance and emphasise the message that is being presented.

A 'perfect functional' design might still see us stuck in the early days of
the web, with a #CCCCCC background, #000000 Times New Roman font, and
blue/purple links, though sometimes this is still an appropriate 'design'.
More often than not, however, clients prefer to see a design that is clear,
consistent and matches or enhances their market image. I don't believe these
demands to be unreasonable or superficial (though I suppose we've all the
the 'horror client' ).

It's 'horses for courses'...

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:13
GMT dorayme scribed:


Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.

You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?

If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all. It is
a cup still. It is a cup without a bottom. It is an awkward cup
to use but a goddamn cup all the same. Notice how I said awkward
and not useless, it may be a cup with a top and not a bottom and
can be held usefully upside down, it may be a cup that has a
topography to it that will hold liquids in it and yet have no
bottom, it may be a cup with no central bottom but inner
chambers.

It may be a cup that is designed for special medical conditions
where it is dangerous for the owner to drink liquids.

It may be a punishment cup, used to irritate an offender by
having liquids dump right down on him.

I cannot think why you are being so simple minded about cups.
Apart from a desire to evade serious cross planetary
interrogation.

Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man, you
selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer interest
me.

Oh Boji, now don't get all huffy. You know in your heart of
hearts that you do want a sneak preview of my cup that has a
missing half.

PS. Boji, what about a cup with a hole in it? Is it a bit less of
a cup? How many holes or how big does the one hole need to be
before it magically ceases cuphood?

 

[asdf]

You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?

If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all. It is
a cup still. It is a cup without a bottom. It is an awkward cup
to use but a goddamn cup all the same. Notice how I said awkward
and not useless, it may be a cup with a top and not a bottom and
can be held usefully upside down, it may be a cup that has a
topography to it that will hold liquids in it and yet have no
bottom, it may be a cup with no central bottom but inner
chambers.

It may be a cup that is designed for special medical conditions
where it is dangerous for the owner to drink liquids.

It may be a punishment cup, used to irritate an offender by
having liquids dump right down on him.

I cannot think why you are being so simple minded about cups.
Apart from a desire to evade serious cross planetary
interrogation.


Oh Boji, now don't get all huffy. You know in your heart of
hearts that you do want a sneak preview of my cup that has a
missing half.

PS. Boji, what about a cup with a hole in it? Is it a bit less of
a cup? How many holes or how big does the one hole need to be
before it magically ceases cuphood?

I think before you design your cup you should ask your client for a
functional specification ))))

 

[dorayme]

Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
that are trying too hard to impress. ...

In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,

I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
of paint in the dunny.

Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.

 

[asdf]

I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
of paint in the dunny.

Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.

Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.

Then we seem to agree. What is your argument?

 

[Ben C]

I was not meaning to get into the status of kinds of decisions
too heavily.

I know, I was just quibbling.

[...]

(But, btw anyway, <g> surely your list has an odd man out! The
last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
of some being conscious)

I didn't mean it that way. I would have thought that literally speaking
an unconscious thought was logically impossible.

But it depends on what you mean by thought.