|
|
Posted by Kevin Scholl on 06/26/02 12:01
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:42:28
> GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> See, that's it. That's what's wrong. "Works", in general, can imply
> either design OR engineering. Now, what does a web page "feel like"?
> The meaning of that idiom is *how it works* in a user-interaction way -
> how it "feels" to the user. Therefore, the phrase later in the quote
> "how it works" only makes sense if it connotes engineering. Even were it
> was a redundancy, the quote is still bogus for that reason.
And I think you are seriously over-analyzing the statement. We hear
people all the time refer to design and "look and feel" (a statement I
abhor, FWIW). With that generality in mind, "works" can (and I believe
is intended to) mean the user interaction.
>> 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.
>
> As I said just below...
>
>>> We are arguing semantics now, though.
>> More like you're trying to rewrite them.
>
> No, just reading what is there.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Well, we seem to agree on the concept of design vs. engineering but not
> on the import of Job's quote. So be it, and no hard feelings.
Never have any hard feelings. The discussion stayed on topic, and didn't
get personal. In my mind, thats' never a bad thing. :)
--
Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|