Posted by Harlan Messinger on 01/23/08 21:20

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> 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.

Thank you. Then there was the sleek can opener I bought, only to have it
pinch the flesh between two of my fingers the first time I used it,
after which it went into the trash can. And then there are the chairs
exemplifying the height of 20th century design at the Museum of Modern
Art in New York--the ones that nobody would ever want to sit on because
they wouldn't be the remotest bit comfortable.

If some of the others weren't so desperate to pretend my analogy was
inapplicable, they would have noticed that I didn't only mention
catastrophes. I mentioned factors that would make the building unusable.
These could include defects like an inability to keep the building
within tolerable temperatures during the height of the winter or summer
months; ceilings too short to allow the taller employees to stand up
straight; lack of a loading dock; lack off access for employees in
wheelchairs; and acoustics like those in a restaurant where people have
to shout over the din to be heard by the person facing them.

[Back to original message]