|
|
Posted by asdf on 10/01/09 12:01
"Kevin Scholl" <kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote in message
news:hrSdnY8n5OM6ewbanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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?
>
> --
>
> Kevin Scholl
> http://www.ksscholl.com/
Back to the Jobs quote...
Let's think of the single most 'market penetrative', or 'recognisably
"Apple"' product to date: the iPod..
Sure... it's expensive, sure it's just yet another MP3 player... but dammit,
it's *designed well*... that's to say... it looks good, it feels good, it
feel like it works well... that's why people buy it. I guess they could save
themselves some bucks and buy the Krapola version, but would they feel good
about it?
I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I'm just saying that people buy a
little into more that *just* engineering, 'cos let's face it, an iPod plays
mp3's... it costs a wallet-load, and provides much the same functionality
that I could get for 39.99 elsewhere... In fact, I can get it for free with
some cell phones. So why do people buy it?
Image. The illusion (true or otherwise) of quality. Design is (sometimes)
about the communication of 'image', about the communication of the image of
'quality'.
'Engineering' alone cannot provide this, but it MUST be present. If the iPod
didn't work, then it wouldn't have the market penetration it currently
enjoys. Similarly, if it didn't have the 'design' that it does... again, I
doubt it would be as successful...
So.... a successful website (by extrapolation of simple marketing
principles) MUST be well engineered ('cos it has to work well), but also, it
MUST be well 'designed' (it has to be appealing to the senses).
I think perhaps in this discussion people have got 'design' and
'engineering' somewhat confused. In today's marketing environment, 'design'
often means 'presented image'.
Is that a fair summary?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|