Architecture is the structure and the vision, design are the details that matter and implementation is the bricks.
To use the skeleton analogy Architecture is the outline, the need for the skeleton its parameters are requirements, the organs and their function and how they will be contained Design is the detail of where the organs are put, what materials to be used for the bones and how the eye should work Implementation is making it all flesh and refining the design so it actually works, but in the case of the human eye not actually getting rid of the massive cabling error in the design. So the architecture says the eye should receive light and colour and be able to discern them to a given accuracy The design says this means there needs to be receptors and these receptors need cabling to link to the brain and the cabling is linked together within the eye before being sent back. It describes a lens and a pupil and how they need to work The implementation builds the lens, builds the eye and takes the cabling out into the eye and then back again, not suggesting that a better approach would have been to take the cabling directly out the back and then onto the brain. That is why architecturally and implementation wise the human eye is perfect but its design is certainly flawed and showing no real evidence of intelligence ;) Steve 2008/5/20 Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Agreedon ROA , its a design approach not an architectural one. >> >> Steve > > Can you elaborate on your distinction between design and architecture? > > My view is design + aesthetics = architecture. Architecture is design. > > -Rob > >
