Posted by asdf on 01/25/08 03:26

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-BB85E9.11494525012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article
> <479921de$0$17209$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-CF4146.07373425012008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>> > In article <Xns9A2F87C91AB5Cnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236>,
>> > Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seriously, however, I'm not particularly attracted to a
>> >> well-engineered
>> >> vehicle with an uninspired design and neither are most consumers.
>> >
>> > What would an example of such a vehicle be?
>> >
>> > --
>> > dorayme
>>
>> Hmm... let's see now...
>>
>> Landrover Defender
>> Toyota Landcruiser
>>
>> ..vehicles that look pretty ugly, but are very good at what they do.
>> That's
>> why they sell to their niche in the market.
>
> Lets take these two then. They are not real good in being as
> efficient as they might be because their wind resistance is high
> - for starters. This is the makers dispensing with a function,
> not just "not attending to some pretty thing" to the eye. In fact
> it is probably ugly because they did try to make it nice to the
> eye! A lot of people, think they look nice.
>
> What I wanted was a case of something that was *perfect* in its
> function but ugly as hell. Ask yourself why there might be a
> dearth of these. The reason lies in the deeper aethetics of a
> design being fit for real use. Ugly buildings are almost
> invariably ones that are badly designed function wise.
>

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there...

Firstly, there is no such thing as "perfect" function, can we call it
"excellent function" instead?

The vehicles... those two vehicles may not be "perfect" in their function,
but they are widely regarded to be "excellent" at their intended function,
which is offroading, not slicing through the air with the greatest of ease.
For their intended function, wind resistance is irrelevant (how people use
them is not the issue).There *are* better looking 4wds, but, some would
argue that they are not as good at their intended function, since this
compromises their intrinsic utility.

Now... to your buildings analogy...

Do you think that a building designed as a bomb-proof shelter would improve
it's function by being pleasing to the eye? Do you think an oil refinery
would be more productive if it didn't have all those pesky pipes and things
spoiling the design?

Flip it the other way. I've been in plenty of 'beautiful' buildings that
don't perform their function well. Buildings with too much glass that
require massive airconditioning for example. Looks good, get's hot as hell
in summer.

Here's something that is close to perfect in it's function but ugly as hell:
a 79c tin opener from the supermarket. It opens tins. It's ugly.

Another: A spanner. It's ugly, but it sure gets those bolts loosened.

So let's get back on topic:

In designing a website (unless you are producing a work of art, rather than
a work of business communication), it's form MUST follow it's function and
content. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

In most cases, the content of a website is a pile of text and graphics, and
yes, more often than not, a generic 'liquid' template fits the bill more
than adequately.

But fact is... if your client doesn't like it, you won't get paid. Simple as
that, regardless of the pros and cons of whatever layout is chosen. Sure, we
can argue the case, but in the end we can only guide our clients. They
ultimately chose, rightly or wrongly.

[Back to original message]