Dave, Most of your list truly represent the way I approach design. Coming from an Architecture background, terms like "holistic", "contextual", "inclusive", "viable" represent key values in an architect's endeavor. The same apply to Industrial design and the like.
I wonder what is your perspective about aesthetics. Here is mine: I think software provides the ideal, flexible canvas in which we can resolve the classic "form vs function" dilemma. Aesthetics can be a functional asset just as the mechanisms where it lays. It can be used to ensure and reinforce usability decisions. Aesthetics, through its semiotic vehicles (connotation and denotation) triggers cognitive functions in our minds (mental models). A "beautiful" interface that does not work becomes "ugly". I am with you 100% on giving aesthetics the relevance that some "usability gurus" try to diminish. I just think that aesthetics can be a vehicle of usability. Gilberto On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:54 AM, dave malouf <dave....@gmail.com> wrote: > While I agree w/ Jared's assessment of point 5 and Fritz as well, I > do caution against throwing the baby out w/ the bat water. > > The initial post was not so much, here's mine, fuck off, if don't > do it, but rather. here are my principles, what are yours and why are > they valuable to you based on your experience. There were 6 points > mentioned by Thomas and while #5 was a tad over stated, there is > definitely merit to questioning a) do you have articulated and used > principles that you evaluate your designs against? b) if so what are > they? c) if not, shouldn't you? and I'll throw in d) shouldn't > principles be flexible to the context of their use? > > so I'd like to focus back on principles here by stating mine: > > Holism over centrism - need to consider all aspects of the design > > Context over theory - tools are great, theories are wonderful, use as > appropriate to the context > > Clarity over simplicity - simple is as simple does. Be clear is > always required, simplicity is not always the goal, but simplicity > CAN aid in clarity > > Inclusion over exclusion - include stakeholders as is appropriate in > the context of design > > Multidisciplinary over silos - no 1 design discipline is gospel > > Visualization over narration - show me, don't tell me > > Emotion over logic - this one should be more balanced, but to keep my > structure, I believe that emotional engagement is more important than > functional logic. > > Aesthetics over usability - Beauty is more powerful than > functionalism > > Business over design - if it can't be sustained in "the market" > then what's the point? market is being used generally here, not just > commercial market, but also for attention or just organizational > utility. > > When I say "over" it doesn't mean disregard, it means, through > consideration of both, I lean towards 1 in my decision making as > there will always be points that put them in irreconcilable > contention. > > Enjoy! use or throw out, or re-assemble as you feel fit! > > -- dave > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=45640 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
