|
|
Posted by Kevin Scholl on 06/18/48 12:01
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:06:00
> GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
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.
--
Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|