Hi Dave, On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 2:38 AM, David Malouf <d...@ixda.org> wrote:
> Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. > 1) reminiscent of MS > 2) too brash and distracting > Yes, I found few likes the current Google icon near around. But many people like the one one, that would be the interesting phenomenon to figure out. > > More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my > relationship with Google (or diminished it). > > I think people have missed my point. > I think design is not for or against data, but design should always > be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer > of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express > themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of > interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of > what you are designing [paraphrasing]). > > When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use > google over Yahoo & Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do > with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a > "Liam" (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They > would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword > interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least > attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world > around them. > A question here, since it's a phenomenon that many people prefer Google, are there (or we call it like this?) some kind of essential aesthetic interaction there beyond the surface? And even better, as you urged, could we make it deeper and wider in the essential way? Cheers, -- Jarod -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
