Posted by Toby A Inkster on 01/23/08 20:31

Travis Newbury wrote:

> Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.

Harlan makes a very good point. It seems today, especially in web design,
but to an extent in other areas of endevour, people believe "design" to be
an entirely an artistic and aesthetic matter. However, the aesthetics of a
product have traditionally only made up a small part of the design process.

Consider a mug. The handle juts out and gives the whole thing an
unsymmetrical appearance. From a purely aesthetic point of view, it may be
best to do away with the handle, for perfect rotational symmetry.
Beautiful. But if it burns you when you pick it up because your hand is
too near the boiling hot liquid contents, then the mug is badly designed.
It is not fit for purpose.

Apple are a good example of a company that seem to get design right,
pretty much all of the time. They rightly receive plaudits for the
aesthetics of their devices (although that is mostly characterised by
minimalism, a look that is not too difficult to achieve), but it's the
other part of design where they really shine.

Back to websites: you might have pages and pages of beautifully drafted
prose, but if nobody can understand how to use your "unique and innovative
navigation scheme", then nobody's going to be able to admire them.

Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
*fundamental* to good design.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 24 days, 7:24.]

CSS to HTML Compiler
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/22/css-compile/

[Back to original message]