Just a little anecdotal evidence

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:41:22
GMT dorayme scribed:

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

The whole thing. My statement is quite clear and self-explanatory. If you
failed to understand it, perhaps it's time to bring out the ol' primer
(again).

 

[dorayme]

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[/QUOTE]

Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
that you have.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:12:41
GMT dorayme scribed:

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

Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
that you have.[/QUOTE]

Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and handle
are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie, can you fit
your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the handle break, is
drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc., etc. The designer
must, indeed, know certain things about cup construction. However, exactly
how these goals are achieved at the fundamental level (-is the ceramic
strong enough and watertight and amenable to mass production precesses,
etc.) is engineering.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:12:41
GMT dorayme scribed:


Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and handle
are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie, can you fit
your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the handle break, is
drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc., etc. The designer
must, indeed, know certain things about cup construction. However, exactly
how these goals are achieved at the fundamental level (-is the ceramic
strong enough and watertight and amenable to mass production precesses,
etc.) is engineering.

You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
engineering?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:35:34
GMT dorayme scribed:

You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
engineering?

Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
necessary.

Make sense now?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
necessary.

Make sense now?

What color is the car?

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:35:34
GMT dorayme scribed:


Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
necessary.

Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.

Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic viewpoint,
no. But characteristics such as size and orientation (depending upon the
space into which it need be placed), as well as not-so-subtle elements
such as how its exhaust system integrates into the vehicle, are DESIGN
issues. Again, the engineering is in the actual building and
implementation of the engine. Both are inherently necessary to solve the
problem.

Make sense now?

I dunno, does it?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:32:27
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:

What color is the car?

It varies by country of sale. -Burnt Sienna and Maroon in Australia.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:06
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.

Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic
viewpoint, no. But characteristics such as size and orientation
(depending upon the space into which it need be placed), as well as
not-so-subtle elements such as how its exhaust system integrates into
the vehicle, are DESIGN issues. Again, the engineering is in the
actual building and implementation of the engine. Both are inherently
necessary to solve the problem.

Okay, and furthermore I think the word "design" often includes factors
which are properly engineering, too. Edison "engineered" the first
successful light bulb, he didn't "design" it, but the sentence "Edison
designed the first light bulb," isn't particularly wrong as commonly
manifested, either.

 

[dorayme]

GMT dorayme scribed:

Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?

Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
necessary.

Make sense now?

No.

I understand what goes through the mind of an engineer designing
something. I just don't understand your categories. You seem not
to understand the idea of functional design. Perhaps you have a
coat-of-paint theory about these things: as if there is the
boring old bits about making something and then there is the
aethetics, some functionally irrelevant aspect like the actual
tint or colour it. You identify aesthetics with the most
superficial but, in fact, least really aesthetic aspects.

And, no, this is not about semantics, it is about a whole aspect
of design that you seem to leave completely out no matter what
your words.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:06
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:


Okay, and furthermore I think the word "design" often includes factors
which are properly engineering, too. Edison "engineered" the first
successful light bulb, he didn't "design" it, but the sentence "Edison
designed the first light bulb," isn't particularly wrong as commonly
manifested, either.

Particularly wrong, no, but somewhat strange. In the case of Edison and
the lightbulb, he was concerned almost entirely with mechanical
functionality, which practically screams "engineering". The aesthetics
and usability (other than size and general simplicity) were likely not
so important, and there is no user flow per se, certainly not in the
sense of a Web site.

Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
different things, as approaching the question from different sides.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:23:21 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

Particularly wrong, no, but somewhat strange. In the case of Edison and
the lightbulb, he was concerned almost entirely with mechanical
functionality, which practically screams "engineering". The aesthetics
and usability (other than size and general simplicity) were likely not
so important, and there is no user flow per se, certainly not in the
sense of a Web site.

Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
different things, as approaching the question from different sides.

I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable, but I
believe that the markup and coding are essentially engineering events
guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of design. However, the 2 terms
are usually used familiarly and often overlap in meaning.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:44:33
GMT dorayme scribed:

Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?

A designer could not design a cup without a bottom; it is basic to the
item.

No.

I understand what goes through the mind of an engineer designing
something. I just don't understand your categories. You seem not
to understand the idea of functional design. Perhaps you have a
coat-of-paint theory about these things: as if there is the
boring old bits about making something and then there is the
aethetics, some functionally irrelevant aspect like the actual
tint or colour it. You identify aesthetics with the most
superficial but, in fact, least really aesthetic aspects.

And, no, this is not about semantics, it is about a whole aspect
of design that you seem to leave completely out no matter what
your words.

Okay, forget it. I give up.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable, but I
believe that the markup and coding are essentially engineering events
guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of design. However, the 2 terms
are usually used familiarly and often overlap in meaning.

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?

 

[dorayme]

In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable

It is not arguable at all. It has to make some sense before that.
To say that something is the way a website looks and works is to
exclude nothing at all and therefore to say nothing.

You are a bullshit artist. You design bullshit. You engineer
bullshit. And you don't have a clue what the difference is. You
know why? Because there is no fucking difference!

I hope you don't mind me taking a few liberties, Boji; if you
notice, I do this on Sundays. Some people go to church. I drink
and swear as much as possible.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:44:33
GMT dorayme scribed:


A designer could not design a cup without a bottom; it is basic to the
item.

IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:06:00
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

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?

Job's statement implies the casual meaning of "works" whereas design can
only accurately contain the empirical meaning as illustrated in the first
part of my statement.

We are arguing semantics now, though.
If you believe design === engineering, fine. I don't. And I don't think I
care to belabor the issue much longer over the selective interpretation of
words and phrases.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:13:07
GMT dorayme scribed:

It is not arguable at all. It has to make some sense before that.
To say that something is the way a website looks and works is to
exclude nothing at all and therefore to say nothing.

You are a bullshit artist. You design bullshit. You engineer
bullshit.

Actually, no, I'm in neither marketing nor politics. But thanks for the
compliment.

And you don't have a clue what the difference is. You
know why? Because there is no fucking difference!

Beep - no cigar...

I hope you don't mind me taking a few liberties, Boji; if you
notice, I do this on Sundays. Some people go to church. I drink
and swear as much as possible.

Well, shit, dodo, you kin cuss just as much as your little heart desires!
I like a woman with spunk, and foul mouthes always impress me.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:17:04 GMT
dorayme scribed:

IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?

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

To clarify further, your bottom is an integral part of you (although
perhaps more integral than other bottoms are to other persons.)

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:06:00
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:


Job's statement implies the casual meaning of "works" whereas design can
only accurately contain the empirical meaning as illustrated in the first
part of my statement.

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. 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.

We are arguing semantics now, though.

More like you're trying to rewrite them.

If you believe design === engineering, fine. I don't. And I don't think I
care to belabor the issue much longer over the selective interpretation of
words and phrases.

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.