Posted by mrcakey on 01/24/08 10:24

"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5vppdjF1nnlejU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.

But this is why I think your analogy was irrelevant. You lead from the
assumption that fixed-width layouts are inherently "broken". They're not -
for a start, CSS provides for distinct stylesheets for different media.
Neither are fluid layouts inherently "intuitive". Both have their place.
It's this fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-la attitude to anything that is not
in the current vogue that I object to most, nevermind this idea that
aesthetics are a "nice to have" on top of the usability of the site.
Aesthetics and element placement can be integral to this goal. I hope you
enjoy your magic hot/cold, tall/short building and I hope its users enjoy
trying to find the bathrooms when they're squeezed into a totally
non-intuitive corridor.

+mrcakey

[Back to original message]