Just a little anecdotal evidence

Not to start another war, but....

My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.

I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
(especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
for wedding and music video clients).

Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
wanted to see that functionality on his.

Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
will probably take your business else ware.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, and could all be bullshit any way,
believe what you want, but there is a place on the web for all this
fancy crap. That is what some people are looking for and my son's
website seems to demonstrate that.

Your mileage may vary

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> Not to start another war, but....
>
> My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
> music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
> His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
> flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.
>
> I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
> tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
> (especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
> almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
> video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
> the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
> their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
> and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
> work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
> Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
> for wedding and music video clients).
>
> Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
> animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
> Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
> promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
> people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
> wanted to see that functionality on his.

Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.

> Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
> of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
> page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
> don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
> will probably take your business else ware.

You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
extra step?

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 9:07 am, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
> happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.

Well actually I created an interactive T-shirt design application in
Flash for a t-shirt company that increased their online sales too
because it allowed their customers to visually design their shirts on
line and order them. Youth sports teams and (interestingly enough)
families ordering "reunion" t-shirts were the biggest increase seen.

But your point is completely valid. It worked for my son's site
because of what he was selling and the fact that his typical customer
was visually motivated. Doing the same thing for other sites may or
may not have the same results. MOST sites would probably have
negative results if they did the same thing. That's why we treat each
site as unique.


Know your client, and know their customers.


> > There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
> > don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
> > will probably take your business else where.
> You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
> extra step?

It was useless extra work for an all Flash site. Everyone that uses
Flash is eventually going to have to upgrade (that is even stated on
his upgrade page). And generally people that enjoy Flash do not have
a problem upgrading to the new version. The clients he was aiming for
are the people that enjoy Flash. The cost/benefit was deemed to low
to create a non flash alternative (plus I had other things to do and
his site was a free-bee)

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On 23 Jan, 13:46, Travis Newbury wrote:
> Not to start another war, but....

Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
exciting _without_ Flash.

Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
interesting by HTML & CSS means too.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 10:27 am, Andy Dingley wrote:
> Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
> exciting _without_ Flash.

Damn, I missed where I said that...

> Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
> interesting by HTML & CSS means too.

Nope it doesn't. And his old HTML/CSS/Flash site looked good, was
functional, and fun. But his new site is obviously more appealing to
his customers than the old one was... Go figure...

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

George W Bush wrote in message
news:167d388f-d79b-4246-8320-0ef400b7588a@i3g2000hsf.googleg roups.com...
> Not to start another war, but....
>

;-)

.......

I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
disagree.

My own two cents:

Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
specify. The only way to ensure this is to use a rigid layout. If I have a
three column layout with divs floated left and right and the content in the
middle is relatively sparse, it's going to look absolutely abysmal in a
browser stretched out to 1400px plus isn't it?

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

mrcakey wrote:
>
> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
> disagree.
>
> My own two cents:
>
> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
> appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
> the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
> design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
> white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
> wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
> specify.

People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using
real-world building materials, and even if it would result in a
structure that would be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for
the purpose for which it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very
short period of time.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1@mid.individual.net...
> mrcakey wrote:
>>
>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
>> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
>> disagree.
>>
>> My own two cents:
>>
>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
>> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while
>> it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to
>> work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct
>> from design). These people know what they're doing - there are
>> combinations of white space and visual elements that work and
>> combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.
>
> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
> combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
> It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
> way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
> building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
> be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
> it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.

Really not the same thing is it?

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

mrcakey wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
> news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> mrcakey wrote:
>>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
>>> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> My own two cents:
>>>
>>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
>>> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while
>>> it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to
>>> work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct
>>> from design). These people know what they're doing - there are
>>> combinations of white space and visual elements that work and
>>> combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.
>> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
>> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
>> combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
>> It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
>> way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
>> building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
>> be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
>> it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.
>
> Really not the same thing is it?

Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
beyond them? Or are they under the impression that an analogy isn't
really an analogy unless it's a useless one of the form "A is to B as A
is to B", as evidenced by their picking apart any difference they can
find between the items being compared, regardless of relevance to the
comparison? Yes, I understand that they aren't *exactly* the same, but
in ways *significant to the analogy*, they are the same: The designer is
NOT the all-consuming expert and authority, and in fact may be entirely
ignorant of extremely important considerations.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 1:43 pm, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> > Really not the same thing is it?
> Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
> beyond them?

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

You were saying that people building buildings can't always follow the
design they want because of catastrophic issues that may result by
pushing the limits of the current technology. You were comparing that
to a fixed width site that may not work exaclty the same on a pda or
cell phone as it does in a browser on a computer. I do not believe
the two are comparable.

A fixed width site will work on everyone's system, including
cellphones and pdas, but it might not be as convenient. For example I
check my gmail or Fox News, or weather.com on my cell phone browser.
It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. But I can do it. If I have a computer
and my cell phone, then the computer wins every time.

Why do you think a website has to be equally functional on a cell
phone as on a computer browser to be successful. This has not been
proven true in real world usage.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

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/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 3:31 pm, Toby A Inkster
wrote:
> Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
> *fundamental* to good design.

You have to have 2 things:

1. Content that the visitor wants
2. A presentation of that content in a manner pleasing to the visitor.

If you achieve this for the majority of the people visiting your site
(notice I said MAJORITY not ALL) you win. It makes no difference if
the site is fixed width, felxible, Flash or anything else.

If you meet those two criteria for the majority of your visitors then
you win every time.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:43 pm, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>>> Really not the same thing is it?
>> Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
>> beyond them?
>
> Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.
>
> You were saying that people building buildings can't always follow the
> design they want because of catastrophic issues that may result by
> pushing the limits of the current technology. You were comparing that
> to a fixed width site that may not work exaclty the same on a pda or
> cell phone as it does in a browser on a computer. I do not believe
> the two are comparable.

The crux of the analogy is that THE PRETTY PICTURES ARE NOT THE ONLY
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. There is THAT clear enough? Good friggin' grief.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

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.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Harlan Messinger wrote:

> mrcakey wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
>> news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> mrcakey wrote:
>>>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on
>>>> this issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just
>>>> agree to disagree.
>>>>
>>>> My own two cents:
>>>>
>>>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice
>>>> goal - user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc.,
>>>> but while it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute
>>>> fortune to work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics
>>>> being distinct from design). These people know what they're doing -
>>>> there are combinations of white space and visual elements that work
>>>> and combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>>>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.
>>> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
>>> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there
>>> are combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that
>>> don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to
>>> look the way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved
>>> using real-world building materials, and even if it would result in a
>>> structure that would be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate
>>> for the purpose for which it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a
>>> very short period of time.
>>
>> Really not the same thing is it?
>
> Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
> beyond them? Or are they under the impression that an analogy isn't really
> an analogy unless it's a useless one of the form "A is to B as A is to B",
> as evidenced by their picking apart any difference they can find between
> the items being compared, regardless of relevance to the comparison? Yes,

I don't have a dog in this fight -- but with me, anyway, that usually
means that my analogy has busted their ass wide open and it's the best
they can come up with.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:31 pm, Toby A Inkster
> wrote:
>> Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
>> *fundamental* to good design.
>
> You have to have 2 things:
>
> 1. Content that the visitor wants
> 2. A presentation of that content in a manner pleasing to the visitor.

3. Functional framework that is both intuitive and accessible.

Nobody likes a door that is gorgeous to look, that is the entry to the
most desirable room, but one that no one can figure out how to open!

>
> If you achieve this for the majority of the people visiting your site
> (notice I said MAJORITY not ALL) you win. It makes no difference if
> the site is fixed width, felxible, Flash or anything else.
>
> If you meet those two criteria for the majority of your visitors then
> you win every time.
>

So I look for the trinity...



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:43:11
GMT Harlan Messinger scribed:

> mrcakey wrote:
>> Really not the same thing is it?
>
> Why do people respond to analogies this way?

They haven't taken enough analgesic beforehand.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:04
GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:

> 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.

You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued that
the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a province of
aesthetics.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> > You have to have 2 things:
> > 1. Content that the visitor wants
> > 2. A presentation of that content in a manner pleasing to the visitor.
> 3. Functional framework that is both intuitive and accessible.

I believe #3 is part of #2. To be pleasing it must be accessible and
intuitive.

Man we are on an agreement roller coaster...

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> > Really not the same thing is it?
>
> Why do people respond to analogies this way?

Because they are don't understand them, they don't understand
their scope. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 4:11 pm, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> The crux of the analogy is that THE PRETTY PICTURES ARE NOT THE ONLY
> IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. There is THAT clear enough? Good friggin' grief.

Hmmmm.... I believe that is what I have been saying all along.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 6:40 pm, dorayme wrote:
>. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)

suck up....

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:

> You seem to be equating design with engineering.

Engineering is often an important part of the design process, depending
on what it is being designed. It is, for example, more important when
designing a bridge than when designing a cuddly toy.

> It can be argued that the 2 are separate disciplines and design is
> primarily a province of aesthetics.

Yes that can be argued. But only by dolts.

--
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, 20:21.]

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

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Travis Newbury" wrote in message
news:70d82fe9-054a-42b0-90da-4f35c578db44@i29g2000prf.google groups.com...
> On Jan 23, 4:11 pm, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>> The crux of the analogy is that THE PRETTY PICTURES ARE NOT THE ONLY
>> IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. There is THAT clear enough? Good friggin' grief.
>
> Hmmmm.... I believe that is what I have been saying all along.
>

Me too.

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Harlan Messinger" 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

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9A2E9EB856474nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:43:11
> GMT Harlan Messinger scribed:
>
>> mrcakey wrote:
>>> Really not the same thing is it?
>>
>> Why do people respond to analogies this way?
>
> They haven't taken enough analgesic beforehand.
>

Reminds me of that line in Scrubs - "no sir, it's pronounced
Ann-el-jeez-ic".

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9A2E9F830368Bnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:04
> GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
>
>> 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.
>
> You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued that
> the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a province of
> aesthetics.
>

Disagree strongly. See HM's *good* analogy of a pretty mug with a badly
designed handle / nearly everything Apple has ever done.

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-AB6AF1.10403124012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> > Really not the same thing is it?
>>
>> Why do people respond to analogies this way?
>
> Because they are don't understand them, they don't understand
> their scope. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)

Again, not true. It was clearly understood, I just don't agree with its
underlying assumptions.

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:12:08
GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> You seem to be equating design with engineering.
>
> Engineering is often an important part of the design process,
> depending on what it is being designed. It is, for example, more
> important when designing a bridge than when designing a cuddly toy.

Designing an automobile and engineering it so it operates useably and
safely are 2 different things

>> It can be argued that the 2 are separate disciplines and design is
>> primarily a province of aesthetics.
>
> Yes that can be argued. But only by dolts.

Well, design may include more than simple aesthetics, true, but it isn't
engineering, either. Web-page design encompasses techniques of
functionality regarding the page as a whole, but the detail of _how_
those techniques work is beyond the scope of mere design.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Neredbojias" wrote in message
news:Xns9A2F2D5E77490nanopandaneredbojias@194.177.96.78...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:12:08
> GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>> You seem to be equating design with engineering.
>>
>> Engineering is often an important part of the design process,
>> depending on what it is being designed. It is, for example, more
>> important when designing a bridge than when designing a cuddly toy.
>
> Designing an automobile and engineering it so it operates useably and
> safely are 2 different things

I'll sell you my box-shaped, crumple-zone free car with my patented 2-foot
spike sticking out the front then.

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:27:35
GMT mrcakey scribed:

> "Neredbojias" wrote in message
> news:Xns9A2E9F830368Bnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236...
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008
>> 20:31:04 GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued
>> that the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a
>> province of aesthetics.
>>
>
> Disagree strongly. See HM's *good* analogy of a pretty mug with a
> badly designed handle / nearly everything Apple has ever done.

Ya mean the HM who's known for his inappropriate comparisons?

Anyway, the designer designs the mug with a handle in such a manner that
it's appealing. It has to work, too, so he makes it large enough so
that little Arne doesn't burn his pinky on the cup and strong enough so
that it doesn't break, etc. But _how_ it does these thing in the
designed form is engineering and the engineer is the one who must make
the already-designed product work.

I design a web page and I want it to work a certain way. I have to know
enough to know it basically can work that way and should if correctly
marked up. I then engineer the html and css (plus optionally other
things) to make it work the way it was planned to work. There may be
problems. Ie: FF does something wierd, non-standard with a certain bit
of markup or the designer didn't understand the exact nature of
"relative" or whatever. I, as the page engineer, must resolve this or
go back to the designer and tell him his design sucks. Maybe my
explanation is colloquial, but there are definitely 2 different concepts
here, something which is often unrealized and the cause of many
arguments.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 23, 5:40 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:04
> GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
>
> > 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.
>
> You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued that
> the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a province of
> aesthetics.
>
> --
> Neredbojias
> Riches are their own reward.

"Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
> it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003

This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
subsidized by Microsoft....

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>
>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it
>> works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>
> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
> subsidized by Microsoft....

From a man whose company would not *have* survived if it had not been
subsidised by Microsoft during the 90s, having been run into the ground by
his two immediate predecessors as CEO.

--
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 25 days, 4:11.]

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

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>
> > "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
> > it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>
> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
> subsidized by Microsoft....

Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
itself contains a great deal of logical truth.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
>> it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>
> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
> subsidized by Microsoft....

Nonsense.

Microsoft invested peanuts ($150 million IIRC) in Apple. At the time,
Apple still had *billions* in the bank to fall back on.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
"mrcakey" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-AB6AF1.10403124012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >> > Really not the same thing is it?
> >>
> >> Why do people respond to analogies this way?
> >
> > Because they are don't understand them, they don't understand
> > their scope. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)
>
> Again, not true. It was clearly understood, I just don't agree with its
> underlying assumptions.
>

With respect, it does not seem to me you understand the point of
the analogy at all.

Harlan: "... 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; ..."

You: "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."

The "assumption" is not some condition you need in order to
understand or agree with the analogy. The analogy was a way of
showing how a fixed width layout has inherent faults. It is not
lurking surreptitiously in the background. It is its point! Which
you are missing. That you don't agree with the point is an
entirely different question.

Your point about the css sheets is scrambling to fix the damage
which in your heart of hearts you know - if you provide
enough stylesheet alternatives somehow, what is left of the fixed
width concept?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Web-page design encompasses techniques of
> functionality regarding the page as a whole, but the detail of _how_
> those techniques work is beyond the scope of mere design.

What a load of fence-sitting-codswallop is this?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:35:31
GMT mrcakey scribed:

>>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>>
>>>> You seem to be equating design with engineering.
>>>
>>> Engineering is often an important part of the design process,
>>> depending on what it is being designed. It is, for example, more
>>> important when designing a bridge than when designing a cuddly toy.
>>
>> Designing an automobile and engineering it so it operates useably and
>> safely are 2 different things
>
> I'll sell you my box-shaped, crumple-zone free car with my patented
> 2-foot spike sticking out the front then.

I might be interested if it's a steel spike. Lots of times I get mad at
the guy in front of me...

Seriously, however, I'm not particularly attracted to a well-engineered
vehicle with an uninspired design and neither are most consumers.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:12:38 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

> On Jan 23, 5:40 pm, Neredbojias wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:04
>> GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued that
>> the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a province of
>> aesthetics.
>
> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
> it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003

He's a better businessman than slogan-maker. That bullshit aside, design
is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:13:29 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

> On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>>
>> > "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
>> > it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>>
>> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
>> subsidized by Microsoft....
>
> Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
> itself contains a great deal of logical truth.

The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may, however,
sound good to those in a mental fugue.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias 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

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> That bullshit aside, design
> is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.

Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-CF4146.07373425012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article ,
> Neredbojias 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.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479921de$0$17209$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-CF4146.07373425012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias 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.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:13:29 GMT
> Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>> On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how
>>>> it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>>> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
>>> subsidized by Microsoft....
>> Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
>> itself contains a great deal of logical truth.
>
> The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may, however,
> sound good to those in a mental fugue.

Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that design
has no part in how a Web site works.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" 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" wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-CF4146.07373425012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> > In article ,
>> > Neredbojias 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.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:37:34 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias 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?

Hard to say. Perhaps an Edsel? (-or XY...)

People will mention cars like the VW Beetle or Range Rover, but they're not
them. Those were adequately engineered and pleasingly-designed in their
day and became "classics" over the years. Also, "pleasingly-designed" does
not have to mean things like graceful curves or symmetry, either.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:15:57
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008
>> 19:13:29 GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is
>>>>> how it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>>>> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
>>>> subsidized by Microsoft....
>>> Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
>>> itself contains a great deal of logical truth.
>>
>> The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may,
>> however, sound good to those in a mental fugue.
>
> Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that design
> has no part in how a Web site works.

I'm not saying design has _no part in how_ a web site "works", I'm saying
design is not _how_ it works. You changed the meaning of the word "works"
in your reply.

The design of a web site certainly affects how it "works" both by its
ergonomic and aesthetic layout for appeal, and by the ease and accuracy of
its dynamics for functionality. But how _this functionality works_ is a
non-design issue.

Steve Jobs was just putting on airs. The quote is bullshit.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:42 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> That bullshit aside, design
>> is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.
>
> Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?

Is that supposed to be a question?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:15:57
> GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008
>>> 19:13:29 GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is
>>>>>> how it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>>>>> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
>>>>> subsidized by Microsoft....
>>>> Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
>>>> itself contains a great deal of logical truth.
>>> The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may,
>>> however, sound good to those in a mental fugue.
>> Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that design
>> has no part in how a Web site works.
>
> I'm not saying design has _no part in how_ a web site "works", I'm saying
> design is not _how_ it works. You changed the meaning of the word "works"
> in your reply.

I changed nothing. It appears that the disconnect is in our definition
of "works". Read on...

> The design of a web site certainly affects how it "works" both by its
> ergonomic and aesthetic layout for appeal, and by the ease and accuracy of
> its dynamics for functionality. But how _this functionality works_ is a
> non-design issue.

I read "works" in the context of the quote to apply to information
architecture, navigation scheme, content flow both within and across
pages, among other things -- indeed, what you've outlined above. These
aspects are all part of, and involve, design. In this sense, design does
indeed have to do with HOW a Web site "works" for the user.

Were you to say that how the functionality is IMPLEMENTED is not design,
I might be more apt agree with you.

> Steve Jobs was just putting on airs. The quote is bullshit.

To each his own.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<47995704$0$17184$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> Do you think that a building designed as a bomb-proof shelter would improve
> it's function by being pleasing to the eye?

Even to ask me such a thing shows it would be hard for us to
discuss this matter - so little are you on my wave length. How
the thing looks is a consequence of its functional design. All
your claims of ugliness are suspect to me I think spanners
are one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen on earth. I
have them on my desk, I twiddle and make like a sword swallower
with them (closest to eating them you see...).

The colour of the paint on a car is about the closest
non-functional, mere morsel to the eye type thing and even then
you have to be careful. In Australia, a well designed car (no
air-conditioning for reasons that should be obvious these days)
would hardly be so if it was not white or highly reflective of
the sun...

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:37:34 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias 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?
>
> Hard to say. Perhaps an Edsel? (-or XY...)
>
> People will mention cars like the VW Beetle or Range Rover, but they're not
> them. Those were adequately engineered and pleasingly-designed in their
> day and became "classics" over the years. Also, "pleasingly-designed" does
> not have to mean things like graceful curves or symmetry, either.

So what quite is the purpose of your post?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:42 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> That bullshit aside, design
> >> is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?
>
> Is that supposed to be a question?

Yes, it is a question. What bit of it, old boy, are you having
trouble with?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article <2tqdnVh5FYHq_gTanZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Kevin Scholl wrote:

> To each his own.

I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
copyrighted.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 24, 11:42 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > To each his own.
> I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
> copyrighted.

hehehehe

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

dorayme wrote:
> In article <2tqdnVh5FYHq_gTanZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Kevin Scholl wrote:
>
>> To each his own.
>
> I think you might have to clear this one with Travis. It may be
> copyrighted.

*snicker*

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 24, 2:40 pm, Ed Jensen wrote:
> > This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
> > subsidized by Microsoft....
> Nonsense.
> Microsoft invested peanuts ($150 million IIRC) in Apple. At the time,
> Apple still had *billions* in the bank to fall back on.

Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
the Amiga went. The Mac use to have one HUGE advantage with graphics
and video editing. That advantage is now gone. Microsoft wants Mac
to stick around so they are not called a monopoly.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:38:22
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008
>> 20:37:34 GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > In article ,
>> > Neredbojias 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?
>>
>> Hard to say. Perhaps an Edsel? (-or XY...)
>>
>> People will mention cars like the VW Beetle or Range Rover, but
>> they're not them. Those were adequately engineered and
>> pleasingly-designed in their day and became "classics" over the
>> years. Also, "pleasingly-designed" does not have to mean things like
>> graceful curves or symmetry, either.
>
> So what quite is the purpose of your post?

To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and engineering
- and it takes both to make a good one.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:24:19
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

>>>>>>> "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is
>>>>>>> how it works." - Steve Jobs, 2003
>>>>>> This from a man who's company would not survive if it were not
>>>>>> subsidized by Microsoft....
>>>>> Who said it, and company dynamics notwithstanding, the statement
>>>>> itself contains a great deal of logical truth.
>>>> The statement itself contains neither truth nor logic. It may,
>>>> however, sound good to those in a mental fugue.
>>> Whatever. You demonstrate a very narrow mind if you think that
>>> design has no part in how a Web site works.
>>
>> I'm not saying design has _no part in how_ a web site "works", I'm
>> saying design is not _how_ it works. You changed the meaning of the
>> word "works" in your reply.
>
> I changed nothing. It appears that the disconnect is in our definition
> of "works". Read on...
>
>> The design of a web site certainly affects how it "works" both by its
>> ergonomic and aesthetic layout for appeal, and by the ease and
>> accuracy of its dynamics for functionality. But how _this
>> functionality works_ is a non-design issue.
>
> I read "works" in the context of the quote to apply to information
> architecture, navigation scheme, content flow both within and across
> pages, among other things -- indeed, what you've outlined above. These
> aspects are all part of, and involve, design. In this sense, design
> does indeed have to do with HOW a Web site "works" for the user.
>
> Were you to say that how the functionality is IMPLEMENTED is not
> design, I might be more apt agree with you.

Okay. Perhaps that distinction is a better way to express the idea.

>> Steve Jobs was just putting on airs. The quote is bullshit.
>
> To each his own.

Sure it is. And it's not only wrong, it's simple-minded. But I'm sure
it sounded good to the target audience when first issued.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:41:22
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 24 Jan 2008
>> 20:42:42 GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > In article ,
>> > Neredbojias wrote:
>> >
>> >> That bullshit aside, design
>> >> is how it should work, engineering is how it does work.
>> >
>> > Is this supposed to be some clarification of something?
>>
>> Is that supposed to be a question?
>
> Yes, it is a question. What bit of it, old boy, are you having
> trouble with?

The whole thing. My statement is quite clear and self-explanatory. If you
failed to understand it, perhaps it's time to bring out the ol' primer
(again).

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> > So what quite is the purpose of your post?
>
> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and engineering
> - and it takes both to make a good one

Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
that you have.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:12:41
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> > So what quite is the purpose of your post?
>>
>> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and
>> engineering - and it takes both to make a good one
>
> Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
> not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
> that you have.

Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and handle
are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie, can you fit
your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the handle break, is
drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc., etc. The designer
must, indeed, know certain things about cup construction. However, exactly
how these goals are achieved at the fundamental level (-is the ceramic
strong enough and watertight and amenable to mass production precesses,
etc.) is engineering.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:12:41
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> > So what quite is the purpose of your post?
> >>
> >> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and
> >> engineering - and it takes both to make a good one
> >
> > Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
> > not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
> > that you have.
>
> Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and handle
> are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie, can you fit
> your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the handle break, is
> drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc., etc. The designer
> must, indeed, know certain things about cup construction. However, exactly
> how these goals are achieved at the fundamental level (-is the ceramic
> strong enough and watertight and amenable to mass production precesses,
> etc.) is engineering.


You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
engineering?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:35:34
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> >> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and
>> >> engineering - and it takes both to make a good one
>> >
>> > Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
>> > not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
>> > that you have.
>>
>> Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and
>> handle are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie,
>> can you fit your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the
>> handle break, is drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc.,
>> etc. The designer must, indeed, know certain things about cup
>> construction. However, exactly how these goals are achieved at the
>> fundamental level (-is the ceramic strong enough and watertight and
>> amenable to mass production precesses, etc.) is engineering.
>
>
> You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
> understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
> understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
> whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
> engineering?

Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
necessary.

Make sense now?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 26, 9:46 am, Neredbojias wrote:
> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
> and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
> can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
> 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
> the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
> the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
> must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
> must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
> necessary.
>
> Make sense now?

What color is the car?

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:35:34
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
>>>>> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and
>>>>> engineering - and it takes both to make a good one
>>>> Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
>>>> not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
>>>> that you have.
>>>
>>> Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and
>>> handle are a design thing that includes utility and feasibility. Ie,
>>> can you fit your fingers in the handle without burning them, will the
>>> handle break, is drinking from such a cup easy for the drinker, etc.,
>>> etc. The designer must, indeed, know certain things about cup
>>> construction. However, exactly how these goals are achieved at the
>>> fundamental level (-is the ceramic strong enough and watertight and
>>> amenable to mass production precesses, etc.) is engineering.
>>
>> You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
>> understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
>> understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
>> whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
>> engineering?
>
> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
> and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
> can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
> 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
> the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
> the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
> must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
> must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
> necessary.

Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.

Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic viewpoint,
no. But characteristics such as size and orientation (depending upon the
space into which it need be placed), as well as not-so-subtle elements
such as how its exhaust system integrates into the vehicle, are DESIGN
issues. Again, the engineering is in the actual building and
implementation of the engine. Both are inherently necessary to solve the
problem.

> Make sense now?

I dunno, does it? :)

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:32:27
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:

> On Jan 26, 9:46 am, Neredbojias wrote:
>> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports
>> car and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the
>> shape and can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine
>> should be about 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind
>> resistance, etc., of the impending vehicle. However, there is a
>> limited anount of room under the hood and no currently-produced
>> engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine must be _engineered_ to meet
>> the requirements _if possible_ or the designer must be informed that
>> a change in engine-compartment size is really necessary.
>>
>> Make sense now?
>
> What color is the car?

It varies by country of sale. -Burnt Sienna and Maroon in Australia.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:06
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

>> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports
>> car and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the
>> shape and can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine
>> should be about 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind
>> resistance, etc., of the impending vehicle. However, there is a
>> limited anount of room under the hood and no currently-produced
>> engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine must be _engineered_ to meet
>> the requirements _if possible_ or the designer must be informed that
>> a change in engine-compartment size is really necessary.
>
> Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.
>
> Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
> requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic
> viewpoint, no. But characteristics such as size and orientation
> (depending upon the space into which it need be placed), as well as
> not-so-subtle elements such as how its exhaust system integrates into
> the vehicle, are DESIGN issues. Again, the engineering is in the
> actual building and implementation of the engine. Both are inherently
> necessary to solve the problem.

Okay, and furthermore I think the word "design" often includes factors
which are properly engineering, too. Edison "engineered" the first
successful light bulb, he didn't "design" it, but the sentence "Edison
designed the first light bulb," isn't particularly wrong as commonly
manifested, either.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> >> To state there are 2 major qualities to a web page - design and
> >> >> engineering - and it takes both to make a good one
> >> >
> >> > Well, if you think there is some distinction between two that is
> >> > not normally obvious, you need to explain it clearly. I can't see
> >> > that you have.
> >>
> >> Go back to the cup-with-a-handle thing. The shapes of the cup and
> >> handle are a design thing ....However, exactly how these goals are achieved at the
> >> fundamental level (-is the ceramic strong enough and watertight and
> >> amenable to mass production precesses, etc.) is engineering.
> >
> >
> > You have lost me, I am not kidding. It is not that I don't
> > understand the bits and pieces in your paragraph. It is trying to
> > understand themas a whole. The shape of a cup will influence
> > whether it leaks - it needs a bottom. Is this design or
> > engineering?
>

Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?


> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports car
> and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the shape and
> can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine should be about
> 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind resistance, etc., of
> the impending vehicle. However, there is a limited anount of room under
> the hood and no currently-produced engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine
> must be _engineered_ to meet the requirements _if possible_ or the designer
> must be informed that a change in engine-compartment size is really
> necessary.
>
> Make sense now?

No.

I understand what goes through the mind of an engineer designing
something. I just don't understand your categories. You seem not
to understand the idea of functional design. Perhaps you have a
coat-of-paint theory about these things: as if there is the
boring old bits about making something and then there is the
aethetics, some functionally irrelevant aspect like the actual
tint or colour it. You identify aesthetics with the most
superficial but, in fact, least really aesthetic aspects.

And, no, this is not about semantics, it is about a whole aspect
of design that you seem to leave completely out no matter what
your words.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:06
> GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>>> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports
>>> car and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the
>>> shape and can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine
>>> should be about 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind
>>> resistance, etc., of the impending vehicle. However, there is a
>>> limited anount of room under the hood and no currently-produced
>>> engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine must be _engineered_ to meet
>>> the requirements _if possible_ or the designer must be informed that
>>> a change in engine-compartment size is really necessary.
>> Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.
>>
>> Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
>> requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic
>> viewpoint, no. But characteristics such as size and orientation
>> (depending upon the space into which it need be placed), as well as
>> not-so-subtle elements such as how its exhaust system integrates into
>> the vehicle, are DESIGN issues. Again, the engineering is in the
>> actual building and implementation of the engine. Both are inherently
>> necessary to solve the problem.
>
> Okay, and furthermore I think the word "design" often includes factors
> which are properly engineering, too. Edison "engineered" the first
> successful light bulb, he didn't "design" it, but the sentence "Edison
> designed the first light bulb," isn't particularly wrong as commonly
> manifested, either.

Particularly wrong, no, but somewhat strange. In the case of Edison and
the lightbulb, he was concerned almost entirely with mechanical
functionality, which practically screams "engineering". The aesthetics
and usability (other than size and general simplicity) were likely not
so important, and there is no user flow per se, certainly not in the
sense of a Web site.

Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
different things, as approaching the question from different sides.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:23:21 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

> Particularly wrong, no, but somewhat strange. In the case of Edison and
> the lightbulb, he was concerned almost entirely with mechanical
> functionality, which practically screams "engineering". The aesthetics
> and usability (other than size and general simplicity) were likely not
> so important, and there is no user flow per se, certainly not in the
> sense of a Web site.
>
> Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
> it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
> can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
> different things, as approaching the question from different sides.

I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable, but I
believe that the markup and coding are essentially engineering events
guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of design. However, the 2 terms
are usually used familiarly and often overlap in meaning.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:44:33
GMT dorayme scribed:

> Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?

A designer could not design a cup without a bottom; it is basic to the
item.

>> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports
>> car and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the
>> shape and can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine
>> should be about 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind
>> resistance, etc., of the impending vehicle. However, there is a
>> limited anount of room under the hood and no currently-produced
>> engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine must be _engineered_ to meet
>> the requirements _if possible_ or the designer must be informed that
>> a change in engine-compartment size is really necessary.
>>
>> Make sense now?
>
> No.
>
> I understand what goes through the mind of an engineer designing
> something. I just don't understand your categories. You seem not
> to understand the idea of functional design. Perhaps you have a
> coat-of-paint theory about these things: as if there is the
> boring old bits about making something and then there is the
> aethetics, some functionally irrelevant aspect like the actual
> tint or colour it. You identify aesthetics with the most
> superficial but, in fact, least really aesthetic aspects.
>
> And, no, this is not about semantics, it is about a whole aspect
> of design that you seem to leave completely out no matter what
> your words.

Okay, forget it. I give up.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:

>> Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
>> it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
>> can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
>> different things, as approaching the question from different sides.
>
> I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
> and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
> is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable, but I
> believe that the markup and coding are essentially engineering events
> guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of design. However, the 2 terms
> are usually used familiarly and often overlap in meaning.

Hmmm ... let me ask you something. You just stated above that "...design
of a web site is the way which it looks and works for the user."

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?

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
> and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al., it
> is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable

It is not arguable at all. It has to make some sense before that.
To say that something is the way a website looks and works is to
exclude nothing at all and therefore to say nothing.

You are a bullshit artist. You design bullshit. You engineer
bullshit. And you don't have a clue what the difference is. You
know why? Because there is no fucking difference!

I hope you don't mind me taking a few liberties, Boji; if you
notice, I do this on Sundays. Some people go to church. I drink
and swear as much as possible.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:44:33
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?
>
> A designer could not design a cup without a bottom; it is basic to the
> item.

IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:06:00
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>> Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think
>>> about it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity
>>> thereof, can alter their application. I don't think we're so much
>>> saying different things, as approaching the question from different
>>> sides.
>>
>> I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it
>> looks and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css,
>> et al., it is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is
>> arguable, but I believe that the markup and coding are essentially
>> engineering events guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of
>> design. However, the 2 terms are usually used familiarly and often
>> overlap in meaning.
>
> Hmmm ... let me ask you something. You just stated above that
> "...design of a web site is the way which it looks and works for the
> user."
>
> 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.

We are arguing semantics now, though.
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.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:13:07
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
>> and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et
>> al., it is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is
>> arguable
>
> It is not arguable at all. It has to make some sense before that.
> To say that something is the way a website looks and works is to
> exclude nothing at all and therefore to say nothing.
>
> You are a bullshit artist. You design bullshit. You engineer
> bullshit.

Actually, no, I'm in neither marketing nor politics. But thanks for the
compliment.

> And you don't have a clue what the difference is. You
> know why? Because there is no fucking difference!

Beep - no cigar...

> I hope you don't mind me taking a few liberties, Boji; if you
> notice, I do this on Sundays. Some people go to church. I drink
> and swear as much as possible.

Well, shit, dodo, you kin cuss just as much as your little heart desires!
I like a woman with spunk, and foul mouthes always impress me.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:17:04 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:44:33
>> GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > Is including the bottom of a cup a design or engineering decision?
>>
>> A designer could not design a cup without a bottom; it is basic to the
>> item.
>
> IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?

It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.

To clarify further, your bottom is an integral part of you (although
perhaps more integral than other bottoms are to other persons.)

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:06:00
> GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>> Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think
>>>> about it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity
>>>> thereof, can alter their application. I don't think we're so much
>>>> saying different things, as approaching the question from different
>>>> sides.
>>> I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it
>>> looks and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css,
>>> et al., it is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is
>>> arguable, but I believe that the markup and coding are essentially
>>> engineering events guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of
>>> design. However, the 2 terms are usually used familiarly and often
>>> overlap in meaning.
>> Hmmm ... let me ask you something. You just stated above that
>> "...design of a web site is the way which it looks and works for the
>> user."
>>
>> 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. 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.

> We are arguing semantics now, though.

More like you're trying to rewrite them.

> 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.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Kevin Scholl" wrote in message
news:hrSdnY8n5OM6ewbanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>> Kind of an important point to this entire discussion, if you think about
>>> it: one's definitions for some of the terms, and specificity thereof,
>>> can alter their application. I don't think we're so much saying
>>> different things, as approaching the question from different sides.
>>
>> I agree. In my mind, the design of a web site is the way which it looks
>> and works for the user. The engineering is how, via html, css, et al.,
>> it is able to correctly work that way. I realize this is arguable, but I
>> believe that the markup and coding are essentially engineering events
>> guided by a mental conception (or drawing) of design. However, the 2
>> terms are usually used familiarly and often overlap in meaning.
>
> Hmmm ... let me ask you something. You just stated above that "...design
> of a web site is the way which it looks and works for the user."
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> Kevin Scholl
> http://www.ksscholl.com/

Back to the Jobs quote...

Let's think of the single most 'market penetrative', or 'recognisably
"Apple"' product to date: the iPod..

Sure... it's expensive, sure it's just yet another MP3 player... but dammit,
it's *designed well*... that's to say... it looks good, it feels good, it
feel like it works well... that's why people buy it. I guess they could save
themselves some bucks and buy the Krapola version, but would they feel good
about it?

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I'm just saying that people buy a
little into more that *just* engineering, 'cos let's face it, an iPod plays
mp3's... it costs a wallet-load, and provides much the same functionality
that I could get for 39.99 elsewhere... In fact, I can get it for free with
some cell phones. So why do people buy it?

Image. The illusion (true or otherwise) of quality. Design is (sometimes)
about the communication of 'image', about the communication of the image of
'quality'.

'Engineering' alone cannot provide this, but it MUST be present. If the iPod
didn't work, then it wouldn't have the market penetration it currently
enjoys. Similarly, if it didn't have the 'design' that it does... again, I
doubt it would be as successful...

So.... a successful website (by extrapolation of simple marketing
principles) MUST be well engineered ('cos it has to work well), but also, it
MUST be well 'designed' (it has to be appealing to the senses).

I think perhaps in this discussion people have got 'design' and
'engineering' somewhat confused. In today's marketing environment, 'design'
often means 'presented image'.

Is that a fair summary?

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

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.

> 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.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

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/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:
> Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
> the Amiga went. The Mac use to have one HUGE advantage with graphics
> and video editing. That advantage is now gone. Microsoft wants Mac
> to stick around so they are not called a monopoly.

It wasn't until after I posted my message that I thought you might be
referring to Office for Mac instead. Sorry for the confusion; 99% of
the time my assumption is correct, but it's obviously not correct 100%
of the time!

And I think you're right about the reason Microsoft keeps making
Office for Mac.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>
> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.

Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:

One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)

Two, everything that is a property of a particular cup is an
integral part of this cup. Is there something in Boji Design
Theory about "integrality" that you have failed to mention? An
ingredient that needs to be understood in order to understand the
rest of your treatise?

A cup could be designed without a bottom. For any number of
purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?

It is a tricky subject and you are just saying this and that and
not making a coherent whole. When you are asked a perfectly good
question, you ad hoc. "Oh that is an integral part of the cup"
without answering the question.

I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
schmuck ideas.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479c2a7a$0$9758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> Is that a fair summary?

No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>>
>> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.
>
> Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:
>
> One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
> necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
> reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
> but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
> If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
> another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)

I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.

Some decisions can be made very quickly, like which way to hit the ball
in a game of tennis, but perhaps those are better called subconscious
rather than unconscious.

[...]
> A cup could be designed without a bottom. For any number of
> purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
> he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?
>
> It is a tricky subject
[...]

One distinction between design and engineering is that design is usually
supposed to be done earlier in the process and take the form of some
kind of plan. Engineering is then a matter of filling in the details.

If you ever did woodworking at school they always made you attempt to
draw a picture of what you were going to make before sawing up any wood.
This was intended to teach the importance of design and to save wood.

The concept of design then extends to the idea of thinking more about
things rather than just dashing off the first thing that works. Hence an
iPod is said to be designed rather than merely engineered because they
thought about details such as whether it's better to have a big play
button on the front or to make play an option in a menu system three or
four levels deep.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
> >>
> >> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.
> >
> > Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:
> >
> > One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
> > necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
> > reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
> > but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
> > If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
> > another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)
>
> I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
> decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
> that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.

I was not meaning to get into the status of kinds of decisions
too heavily. My point was simple, that when we make things we
make decisions and some of these decisions are quite deliberate
and some are made automatically without any identifiable process
of thinking. And I was trying to press the distinction between
something people are calling engineering and something they are
calling design.

(But, btw anyway, surely your list has an odd man out! The
last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
of some being conscious)

> Some decisions can be made very quickly, like which way to hit the ball
> in a game of tennis, but perhaps those are better called subconscious
> rather than unconscious.
>

Very well then. Let us agree that there are conscious deliberate
decisions and others below consciousness or at least not
deliberate.

I will attend to the more important issue you go on to raise in a
separate post.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:

> > It is a tricky subject
> [...]
>
> One distinction between design and engineering is that design is usually
> supposed to be done earlier in the process and take the form of some
> kind of plan. Engineering is then a matter of filling in the details.
>
> If you ever did woodworking at school they always made you attempt to
> draw a picture of what you were going to make before sawing up any wood.
> This was intended to teach the importance of design and to save wood.
>
> The concept of design then extends to the idea of thinking more about
> things rather than just dashing off the first thing that works. Hence an
> iPod is said to be designed rather than merely engineered because they
> thought about details such as whether it's better to have a big play
> button on the front or to make play an option in a menu system three or
> four levels deep.

What is mostly missed by people who begin thinking about these
matters is a whole complete notion. To me, it simply looks like
they have forgotten to mention the elephant in the room.

What is this elephant? Let me put it simply: the sheer pleasure
of contemplating a cleverly designed object, be it a mouse trap,
a piece of software, or a chemical plant where nothing at all
apart from the functional necessities are present.

In an engineering project, engineering can be everything! There
is nothing left when the engineering is done perfectly. The final
bell on the fight for aesthetic perfection is rung at the same
time as the final bell for the fight for engineering perfection.
They are one and the same bell.

If there is a real distinction between the basic engineered no
frills product and the fancy doodle dandy consumer level finished
marketed product, it is best made *after* it is better understood
what the aesthetics of function is all about. Why would any
serious person want to base their aesthetic thinking on the
superficialities that govern the market place where the crassest
values dominate through the wallet of masses of people led and
fed by forces beyond their control?

Before we talk, assuming we ever do, about the lovely buttons or
lack of them, the lovely whiteness, etc., on iPods, just think
for a moment about the heart of functional aesthetics: the sheer
goodness and cleverness of a good and clever made object. It is
good and clever because it does what it was designed to do
perfectly. This fact is not something extraneous to its beauty.
Rather it is quite the other way around: anything more than what
it strictly needs to carry out its function is a superficial
thing and does not really deserve the name of beauty.

I will just end for now by telling you one of my pet hates - to
indicate how these ideas are not confined to mouse traps. It
makes me mad when I hear film reviewers say of terrible films,
"ah but the photography was so nice and worth going to see blah
blah" and let this influence their assessment. The film is bad
because it does not hold together as a whole, its parts and it
attributes not making a thing of beauty. Its good photography is
not a redeeming feature at all, it is, in fact, another nail in
its coffin. It is perfume that masks a decomposing dead rat.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-9D497D.08120528012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> <479c2a7a$0$9758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" wrote:
>
>> Is that a fair summary?
>
> No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
> distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
> sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.
>

Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479d1793$0$9770$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-9D497D.08120528012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article
> > <479c2a7a$0$9758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > "asdf" wrote:
> >
> >> Is that a fair summary?
> >
> > No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
> > distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
> > sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.
> >
>
> Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO

I had not meant to imply you were. Keep your shirt on. Let me put
it more diplomatically, asdf, I think you are adopting a
distinction that is open to serious criticism.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-04DF90.10592428012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> <479d1793$0$9770$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-9D497D.08120528012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> > In article
>> > <479c2a7a$0$9758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> > "asdf" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is that a fair summary?
>> >
>> > No. You have bought the not very clear or coherent Boji
>> > distinction between "engineering" and "design" hook, line and
>> > sinker. You do not clarify it but simply repeat it.
>> >
>>
>> Who said I was summarising to placate you? LMGDAO
>
> I had not meant to imply you were. Keep your shirt on. Let me put
> it more diplomatically, asdf, I think you are adopting a
> distinction that is open to serious criticism.
>


I understand your position that engineering perfection can be beautiful.

What I don't buy, however, is that it is not always the case that a
perfectly engineered piece is *necessarily* beautiful. Sure, I can
appreciate "logical" beauty, but the hoary old phrase "Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder" is still true.

For you a wrench is beautiful (as you state in a prior post). I can
appreciate the beauty of it's design, and it's fitness for purpose, but I do
not find it, as an object, intrinsically 'beautiful'.

Design (as I and many others understand it), is more than perfect
engineering. If it were not so, the world would be devoid of art (for
instance), and be a sadder place for it.

Producing a well designed and engineered piece is as much about
*communication* of an idea or style, as it is about fulfilling a functional
specification.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479d1e8c$0$9745$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
[...]
> I understand your position that engineering perfection can be beautiful.
>
> What I don't buy, however, is that it is not always the case that a
> perfectly engineered piece is *necessarily* beautiful. Sure, I can
> appreciate "logical" beauty, but the hoary old phrase "Beauty is in the eye
> of the beholder" is still true.
>
> For you a wrench is beautiful (as you state in a prior post). I can
> appreciate the beauty of it's design, and it's fitness for purpose, but I do
> not find it, as an object, intrinsically 'beautiful'.
>
> Design (as I and many others understand it), is more than perfect
> engineering. If it were not so, the world would be devoid of art (for
> instance), and be a sadder place for it.
>
> Producing a well designed and engineered piece is as much about
> *communication* of an idea or style, as it is about fulfilling a functional
> specification.

OK. I also understand your motivation for saying what you say.
But the idea that design is more than perfect engineering needs
more than a mere list of cases to illustrate it. Most of the
things that are offered up to illustrate this distinction are
simply not perfectly well engineered objects at all. I have given
hints about this in my lunatic ravings on this subject: eg. when
I mentioned that something normally thought to be a
non-engineering thing, the colour of a car, I was pointing out
that even this could be an engineering or functional matter (see
my earlier post).

I will concede the following things to those of you who think
there is something in the engineer/design distinction: it is
possible that there could be more than one solution to an
engineering problem that is equally effective. But then it does
come down to matters of quite superficial subjective taste (I
like white, you like slightly off white). But these things are
much much rarer than most people think. And when they occur, they
are not very important and are the worst possible basis to make
the foundation of some aesthetic theory. There is usually a
functional difference between "like" products. As I said to Ben
C, lets talk about these when we have the big elephant covered.

Your idea that I am leaving out art to dry is mistaken. I did not
make the terms of this debate, these terms were dictated by
others in this ng. It is natural to consider objects that have a
use rather things that are in a strict way, useless, however
gloriously so, because the question arose in relation website
design. In particular to most website design, I believe that it
is a sad indictment of earthlings that they want so much flash
and razzle and dazzle.

Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
interested in the substantial things in an informational or
teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:13
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>>
>> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.
>
> Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:
>
> One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
> necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
> reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
> but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
> If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
> another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)
>
> Two, everything that is a property of a particular cup is an
> integral part of this cup. Is there something in Boji Design
> Theory about "integrality" that you have failed to mention? An
> ingredient that needs to be understood in order to understand the
> rest of your treatise?
>
> A cup could be designed without a bottom.

Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup. Even
the variant of male athlete package holders have bottoms unless you wish
to be facetious and hold one at an improper attitude.

Ergo, your point "One" above is erroneous. Point "Two" is equally
malarky because a cup could have something like an insulating jacket or a
velcro strip which is not an integral part of it.

> For any number of
> purposes. When a cup creator decides to put a bottom on a cup, as
> he or she usually does, is this a design or engineering decision?

There is no "decision". Pits may be bottomless and strippers may be
bottomless but cups can't be bottomless and still be cups.

> It is a tricky subject and you are just saying this and that and
> not making a coherent whole. When you are asked a perfectly good
> question, you ad hoc. "Oh that is an integral part of the cup"
> without answering the question.

I did answer the question. You refused to accept it. Your problem.

> I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
> half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
> will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
> about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
> learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
> schmuck ideas.

Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man, you
selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer interest
me.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

>
> Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
> are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
> needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
> pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
> interested in the substantial things in an informational or
> teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
> with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>

Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
that are trying too hard to impress. *Who* they are trying to impress is the
important point.

In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content, that is to say that the
'design' does not become the main focus (unless of course, the design *is*
the message- this is sometimes the case... think of a photographic studio or
rock band for instance, where the design is largely the message).

But even within this fairly tight design spec, there is myriad scope for
creativity by the 'designer'. Even at the basic design level of selection of
colours and fonts, and the 'layout' of the page, there are innumerable
possibilities to enhance and emphasise the message that is being presented.

A 'perfect functional' design might still see us stuck in the early days of
the web, with a #CCCCCC background, #000000 Times New Roman font, and
blue/purple links, though sometimes this is still an appropriate 'design'.
More often than not, however, clients prefer to see a design that is clear,
consistent and matches or enhances their market image. I don't believe these
demands to be unreasonable or superficial (though I suppose we've all the
the 'horror client' :) ).

It's 'horses for courses'...

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:13
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article ,
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >
> >> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
> >>
> >
> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
>
> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.

You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?

If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all. It is
a cup still. It is a cup without a bottom. It is an awkward cup
to use but a goddamn cup all the same. Notice how I said awkward
and not useless, it may be a cup with a top and not a bottom and
can be held usefully upside down, it may be a cup that has a
topography to it that will hold liquids in it and yet have no
bottom, it may be a cup with no central bottom but inner
chambers.

It may be a cup that is designed for special medical conditions
where it is dangerous for the owner to drink liquids.

It may be a punishment cup, used to irritate an offender by
having liquids dump right down on him.

I cannot think why you are being so simple minded about cups.
Apart from a desire to evade serious cross planetary
interrogation.

> > I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
> > half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
> > will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
> > about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
> > learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
> > schmuck ideas.
>
> Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man, you
> selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer interest
> me.

Oh Boji, now don't get all huffy. You know in your heart of
hearts that you do want a sneak preview of my cup that has a
missing half.

PS. Boji, what about a cup with a hole in it? Is it a bit less of
a cup? How many holes or how big does the one hole need to be
before it magically ceases cuphood?

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-5836D2.14043628012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:04:13
>> GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > In article ,
>> > Neredbojias wrote:
>> >
>> >> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>> >>
>> >
>> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
>>
>> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
>
> You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
>
> If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
> it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all. It is
> a cup still. It is a cup without a bottom. It is an awkward cup
> to use but a goddamn cup all the same. Notice how I said awkward
> and not useless, it may be a cup with a top and not a bottom and
> can be held usefully upside down, it may be a cup that has a
> topography to it that will hold liquids in it and yet have no
> bottom, it may be a cup with no central bottom but inner
> chambers.
>
> It may be a cup that is designed for special medical conditions
> where it is dangerous for the owner to drink liquids.
>
> It may be a punishment cup, used to irritate an offender by
> having liquids dump right down on him.
>
> I cannot think why you are being so simple minded about cups.
> Apart from a desire to evade serious cross planetary
> interrogation.
>
>> > I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
>> > half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
>> > will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
>> > about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
>> > learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
>> > schmuck ideas.
>>
>> Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man, you
>> selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer interest
>> me.
>
> Oh Boji, now don't get all huffy. You know in your heart of
> hearts that you do want a sneak preview of my cup that has a
> missing half.
>
> PS. Boji, what about a cup with a hole in it? Is it a bit less of
> a cup? How many holes or how big does the one hole need to be
> before it magically ceases cuphood?
>


I think before you design your cup you should ask your client for a
functional specification :)))))

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> >
> > Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
> > are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
> > needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
> > pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
> > interested in the substantial things in an informational or
> > teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
> > with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
> >
>
> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
> that are trying too hard to impress. ...

> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,

I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
of paint in the dunny.

Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
>> > are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
>> > needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
>> > pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
>> > interested in the substantial things in an informational or
>> > teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
>> > with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>> >
>>
>> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
>> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
>> that are trying too hard to impress. ...
>
>> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that
>> the
>> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
>
> I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
> talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
> design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
> of paint in the dunny.
>

Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.

> Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
> could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
> left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
> it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
> does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.
>

Then we seem to agree. What is your argument?

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:
>> > In article ,
>> > Neredbojias wrote:
>> >
>> >> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>> >>
>> >> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.
>> >
>> > Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:
>> >
>> > One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
>> > necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
>> > reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
>> > but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
>> > If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
>> > another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)
>>
>> I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
>> decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
>> that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.
>
> I was not meaning to get into the status of kinds of decisions
> too heavily.

I know, I was just quibbling.

[...]
> (But, btw anyway, surely your list has an odd man out! The
> last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
> mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
> well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
> of some being conscious)

I didn't mean it that way. I would have thought that literally speaking
an unconscious thought was logically impossible.

But it depends on what you mean by thought.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:04:36
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
>>
>> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
>
> You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
>
> If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
> it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all.

Right. It was never a cup to begin with.

> It is a cup still.

Nope.

> It is a cup without a bottom.

Nope.

> It is an awkward cup to use but a goddamn cup all the same.

Nope.

> Notice how I said awkward and not useless, it may be a cup with a top
and not a bottom and can be held usefully upside down,

Nope.

> it may be a cup that has a topography to it that will hold liquids in
> it and yet have no bottom,

Nope.

> it may be a cup with no central bottom but inner chambers.

Nope.

> It may be a cup that is designed for special medical conditions
> where it is dangerous for the owner to drink liquids.

Nope.

> It may be a punishment cup, used to irritate an offender by
> having liquids dump right down on him.

....A "punishment cup"? -A punishment cup... Ooookkaaaayyyyyyyy...
But nope.

> I cannot think why you are being so simple minded about cups.
> Apart from a desire to evade serious cross planetary
> interrogation.
>
>> > I have a cup sitting on my desk right now that is designed to
>> > half a side missing. I like this cup. I think it is a scream. I
>> > will take a picture of it if you say something remotely sensible
>> > about this whole subject or adopt an attitude of wanting to,
>> > learn about it instead of publicly parading your half-baked
>> > schmuck ideas.
>>
>> Thanks, but when I wanted you to post that picture of the old man,
>> you selfishly refused to do so. So keep your images; they no longer
>> interest me.
>
> Oh Boji, now don't get all huffy. You know in your heart of
> hearts that you do want a sneak preview of my cup that has a
> missing half.

Nope. I couldn't care less.

> PS. Boji, what about a cup with a hole in it? Is it a bit less of
> a cup? How many holes or how big does the one hole need to be
> before it magically ceases cuphood?

Just compare it to the hold in your head and you might get the idea.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479d5742$0$9730$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

>
> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article
> > <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > "asdf" wrote:
> >

> >> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that
> >> the
> >> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
> >
> > I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
> > talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
> > design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
> > of paint in the dunny.
> >
>
> Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
> of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.
>

If it is an intrinsic part of the product, what distinguishes it
from the engineering of the product? Some folk here have been
trying, as far as I can see, to put space between function and
art and I have been intent on criticising this space and reducing
it. Your comment that design features amount to functional
features puzzle me or simply seem to me to concede the point that
there is no space worth talking about. But I may be
misunderstanding you?


> > Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
> > could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
> > left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
> > it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
> > does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.
> >
>
> Then we seem to agree.


Well, ok. perhaps you and I can be happy then about it at this
point.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

asdf wrote:
> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> In article
>> <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> "asdf" wrote:
>>
>>>> Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
>>>> are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
>>>> needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
>>>> pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
>>>> interested in the substantial things in an informational or
>>>> teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
>>>> with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>>>>
>>> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
>>> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
>>> that are trying too hard to impress. ...
>>> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that
>>> the
>>> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
>> I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
>> talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
>> design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
>> of paint in the dunny.
>>
>
> Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential part
> of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.

How is the message differing from page to page to page on all the
variously pages at www.csszengarden.com?

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2008-01-27, dorayme wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Ben C wrote:
> >
> > (But, btw anyway, surely your list has an odd man out! The
> > last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
> > mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
> > well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
> > of some being conscious)
>
> I didn't mean it that way. I would have thought that literally speaking
> an unconscious thought was logically impossible.
>
> But it depends on what you mean by thought.

OK, a point then about how it is best to speak (as usual, imo):

Literally speaking it is far better and more accurate to suppose
that much thought goes on below consciousness. It is natural to
talk of thinking processes going on that we are not conscious of.
I do see that you might be thinking of the actual word "thought"
and seeing an oddity of supposing "a thought" to not be
conscious.

But if we were to really go with this intuition and reject the
form of tlk because we fancied (without any real surety btw) that
there were identifiable such objects as conscious thoughts then
it would hamper our ability to describe particular brilliancies
that people come up with in their sleep or background brain
activities.

It is quite commonly known now how intense (conscious) thinking
about a problem can hit a brick wall, that sleeping overnight on
the problem or simply leaving it and thinking consciously about
other things, can do the trick. And a natural description of some
of these processes can involve the use of such expressions as "He
had these five seemingly incompatible thoughts swimming about in
his brain and processes of which he was not conscious worked
quietly in the background to synthesis them and this was the
result..." or some such phrasing.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
> >>
> >> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
> >
> > You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
> >
> > If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
> > it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all.
>
> Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
>
> > It is a cup without a bottom.
>
> Nope.

[... 1000 gibbering repeat "Nope"s snipped ...]

Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
loss to describe such a cup.

I have thought of another use for a cup that has a (small) hole
in it. And am thinking to actually drill such a hole in existing
cups to make them functionally better. In Australia, if you
forget to drink some or all of your cup of tea or coffee, you
stand a good chance of a cockroach drowning and making for an
ugly sight in the morning. With a small hole, the liquid drains
away slowly and lessens the chances of this.

True, when one is actually drinking with it, there would be a
slight dripping on ones clothes. But in the bush*, this would not
matter much. City refined types would need a small plug perhaps,
this could be engineered or designed (hell, I am clean confused
about which you want to use of these two terms now) into it.

Please think about cups more, Boji. Are you absolutely and
utterly sure you don't want some little pics of cups from me?

* Where is Farmer Joe? He is not around these ngs any more. I
hope he has not had an accident with his tractor.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-DB8AF1.07145029012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> <479d5742$0$9730$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" wrote:
>
>>
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> > In article
>> > <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> > "asdf" wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer
>> >> that
>> >> the
>> >> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
>> >
>> > I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
>> > talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
>> > design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
>> > of paint in the dunny.
>> >
>>
>> Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential
>> part
>> of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the message.
>>
>
> If it is an intrinsic part of the product, what distinguishes it
> from the engineering of the product? Some folk here have been
> trying, as far as I can see, to put space between function and
> art and I have been intent on criticising this space and reducing
> it. Your comment that design features amount to functional
> features puzzle me or simply seem to me to concede the point that
> there is no space worth talking about. But I may be
> misunderstanding you?
>
Indeed you did.

I made no comment to that effect. What I said was that (in the sphere of web
design) "Content PLUS presentation is the message".

If you see that there is a "space" between form and function, then I think
perhaps that is where your problem may lie. Surely it is the job of the
designer to reduce this "space". This is, after all, what a good designer
does... designs products that achieve the desired outcomes with the
available materials.

This is old, old ground now... The 'design' of the product is a description
of how the product should look, how a product should function, how a product
has an emotional impact upon the user, how a product interacts with it's
physical space.

The 'engineering' of a product is working out how to achieve all of the
above, to design a *process* or *technique* as to how to make the vision of
the product a reality.

Sometimes the engineer will also be the designer, sometimes the designer
will also be the engineer. No matter... conceptually the two things are
quite clearly distinct.

BOTH activities together go to make the finished product.

I concede that there may (depending on the project) be considerable overlap
between the two. The two activities are not mutually exclusive in their
areas of responsibility



>
>> > Before you point out that the enhancements and emphasising bits
>> > could be left off, let me point out that so too can anything be
>> > left off. That does not make it a non functional part. It makes
>> > it a lousier website page than it need be. It is less useful, it
>> > does not work as well. It is not as fine a product.
>> >
>>
>> Then we seem to agree.
>
>
> Well, ok. perhaps you and I can be happy then about it at this
> point.
>

I'm not unhappy :) Whatever gave you that idea??

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

>
> How is the message differing from page to page to page on all the
> variously pages at www.csszengarden.com?

Good example... The content is the same on each page, but the presentation
is slightly different.

In viewing each of these, perhaps the consumer will have a different
emotional response to the message. Indeed, this appears to be the aim of the
designer.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479e7120$0$10842$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> The 'design' of the product is a description
> of how the product should look, how a product should function, how a product
> has an emotional impact upon the user, how a product interacts with it's
> physical space.
>
> The 'engineering' of a product is working out how to achieve all of the
> above, to design a *process* or *technique* as to how to make the vision of
> the product a reality.
>

You are interested in the history of the manufactured product and
all the processes that go to make it happen. And you distinguish
various phases and aspects of its construction. Fair enough. But
i am interested in something rather different. I am thinking a
dead designer, a dead manufacturer, a live product and a single
knowledgeable critic and thinking about how he looks at this
product and what he might say by just inspecting the product.

We all know what a complete abortion threatens when these two
aspects are divorced by division of labour. I refer to clueless
designers handing their photoshop ideas to poor schmucks like us.
Ah, you say, but not all designers are clueless. No? Which ones
are not? The ones that are pretty clued up about what is
possible? What is possible engineering wise? So if they are so
clued up how come they don't finish the job? Ah, they are not
that cluey! No? So when the engineering expert comes along he
'makes it possible', he "instantiates the idea' without altering
the idea because he is the expert in instantiation.

Frankly I simply don't buy this picture in the details. The whole
show if it results in a great product may well have a messy
history. But when it comes together, there are not two things
which can be prised apart, the engineering and the design. For
crappy things, yes, for superficial aspects of design, yes, but
not for more than this.

You cannot simply take a great product and make it a different
way (keeping 'the design') without making a different product.


> Sometimes the engineer will also be the designer, sometimes the designer
> will also be the engineer. No matter... conceptually the two things are
> quite clearly distinct.
>
> BOTH activities together go to make the finished product.

What would establish me very wrong are plenty and plenty of pairs
of products with the same fantastic design but *quite different*
engineering. I don't believe it happens much in the real world.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 28, 2:55 pm, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
> Neredbojias wrote:
> > GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > >> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
>
> > >> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
>
> > > You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
>
> > > If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
> > > it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all.
>
> > Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
>
> > > It is a cup without a bottom.
>
> > Nope.
>
> [... 1000 gibbering repeat "Nope"s snipped ...]
>
> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
> loss to describe such a cup.
>
> I have thought of another use for a cup that has a (small) hole
> in it. And am thinking to actually drill such a hole in existing
> cups to make them functionally better. In Australia, if you
> forget to drink some or all of your cup of tea or coffee, you
> stand a good chance of a cockroach drowning and making for an
> ugly sight in the morning. With a small hole, the liquid drains
> away slowly and lessens the chances of this.
>
> True, when one is actually drinking with it, there would be a
> slight dripping on ones clothes. But in the bush*, this would not
> matter much. City refined types would need a small plug perhaps,
> this could be engineered or designed (hell, I am clean confused
> about which you want to use of these two terms now) into it.
>
> Please think about cups more, Boji. Are you absolutely and
> utterly sure you don't want some little pics of cups from me?
>
> * Where is Farmer Joe? He is not around these ngs any more. I
> hope he has not had an accident with his tractor.
>
> --
> dorayme

Are your services free or just cheap. Oh well you probably stink like
your posts do.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:55:57
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
>>
>> > It is a cup without a bottom.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
> loss to describe such a cup.

A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?

> I have thought of another use for a cup that has a (small) hole
> in it. And am thinking to actually drill such a hole in existing
> cups to make them functionally better. In Australia, if you
> forget to drink some or all of your cup of tea or coffee, you
> stand a good chance of a cockroach drowning and making for an
> ugly sight in the morning. With a small hole, the liquid drains
> away slowly and lessens the chances of this.
>
> True, when one is actually drinking with it, there would be a
> slight dripping on ones clothes. But in the bush*, this would not
> matter much. City refined types would need a small plug perhaps,
> this could be engineered or designed (hell, I am clean confused
> about which you want to use of these two terms now) into it.

Well, if the subject wore a raincoat, it would probably never get to the
bush in either a rural or urban setting.

> Please think about cups more, Boji. Are you absolutely and
> utterly sure you don't want some little pics of cups from me?

Quite sure. Might give me the hic'cups.

> * Where is Farmer Joe? He is not around these ngs any more. I
> hope he has not had an accident with his tractor.

And certainly he's not avoiding this topic, this thread, or you...

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Neredbojias wrote:

>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>> loss to describe such a cup.
>
> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?

Just to play devil's advocate, is that necessarily true? What about
those cone-shaped paper cups that typically accompany water jugs in
office or sports environments? If the cone is the side(s), then the cup
has no bottom per se. Or, if the cone is in fact the bottom, then the
cup has no sides.

"What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)


--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Kevin Scholl" wrote in message
news:3pGdnYvt0LcnPAPanZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup is. Most
>>> of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*. But all you can
>>> say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament. Having eschewed a
>>> perfectly natural form of words, you are at a loss to describe such a
>>> cup.
>>
>> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, is that necessarily true? What about those
> cone-shaped paper cups that typically accompany water jugs in office or
> sports environments? If the cone is the side(s), then the cup has no
> bottom per se. Or, if the cone is in fact the bottom, then the cup has no
> sides.
>
> "What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)
>

How Pythagorean :))

Folks, we've stumbled into the metaphysical now... So for my 2c, and to
obfuscate the discussion even further than has been achieved by dorayme et
al... a cup may have a bottom or not. Both are true, depending on who is
perceiving the cup.

Further... the cup does not exist *as a cup* until somebody actually drinks
from it, since a cup is (partly) defined as a drinking vessel. So, by that
logic, a cup *must* have a bottom, since if not, the liquid to be imbibed
would simply fall out the bottom, invalidating the object's definition...

....should the cup be cone shaped, then the cup has sides AND a bottom, the
functions of which are performed by the cone itself, and depending on from
which angle your are perceiving the cup.

....unless of course the cup was designed by a Govt. Dept. (esp. the Ministry
of Defence, Dept. of Defence, or what have you in your country), in which
case, the definition of "cup" would simply be rewritten, so that all the
bottomless cups thus produced or procured would not appear as unnecessary
expenditure, ensuring the supply of funds for the further production or
procurement of bottomless cups in the next fiscal year, and supplying lots
of meaningless employment for the shiny-bums.

When is a cup not a cup? When it's a useless, design-flawed figment of your
imagination.

Arguing metaphysics in an ostensibly technical newsgroup isn't really
useful. Can I point you all at: news:alt.paranet.metaphysics? LMGDAO

*metaphorically ducks to avoid the cup-abstraction just thrown at my head*

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:51:32 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>>> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>>> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>>> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>>> loss to describe such a cup.
>>
>> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, is that necessarily true? What about
> those cone-shaped paper cups that typically accompany water jugs in
> office or sports environments? If the cone is the side(s), then the cup
> has no bottom per se. Or, if the cone is in fact the bottom, then the
> cup has no sides.

Well there's still a part that prevents the contents from leaving the cup.
Where the sides end and the bottom starts might be arbitrary or indefinite,
true, but a bottom (as commonly expressed) exists no matter what the shape.
I kinda like how asdf phrased it:

"...should the cup be cone shaped, then the cup has sides AND a bottom, the
functions of which are performed by the cone itself, and depending on from
which angle you are perceiving the cup."

> "What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)

Uh, one meaningless subject at a time if you please...

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

wrote in message
news:69c279ec-facf-4bb9-b0eb-8150b1cb16b9@i29g2000prf.google groups.com...
> On Jan 28, 2:55 pm, dorayme wrote:
>> In article ,
>>
>>
>>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>> > GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> > >> > A cup could be designed without a bottom.
>>
>> > >> Uh, no it can't. If whatever it is has no bottom, it is NOT a cup.
>>
>> > > You have decided this? You can make words mean what you want?
>>
>> > > If something has every characteristic of a cup except a bottom,
>> > > it does not suddenly and magically become not a cup at all.
>>
>> > Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
>>
>> > > It is a cup without a bottom.
>>
>> > Nope.
>>
>> [... 1000 gibbering repeat "Nope"s snipped ...]
>>
>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>> loss to describe such a cup.
>>
>> I have thought of another use for a cup that has a (small) hole
>> in it. And am thinking to actually drill such a hole in existing
>> cups to make them functionally better. In Australia, if you
>> forget to drink some or all of your cup of tea or coffee, you
>> stand a good chance of a cockroach drowning and making for an
>> ugly sight in the morning. With a small hole, the liquid drains
>> away slowly and lessens the chances of this.
>>
>> True, when one is actually drinking with it, there would be a
>> slight dripping on ones clothes. But in the bush*, this would not
>> matter much. City refined types would need a small plug perhaps,
>> this could be engineered or designed (hell, I am clean confused
>> about which you want to use of these two terms now) into it.
>>
>> Please think about cups more, Boji. Are you absolutely and
>> utterly sure you don't want some little pics of cups from me?
>>
>> * Where is Farmer Joe? He is not around these ngs any more. I
>> hope he has not had an accident with his tractor.
>>
>> --
>> dorayme
>
> Are your services free or just cheap. Oh well you probably stink like
> your posts do.

You child. Even when he's wrong (and I've rather lost track of whether I
agree with him on this one!), he's funny.

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
news:606rnpF1oqkjoU1@mid.individual.net...
> asdf wrote:
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-F70554.14321028012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>>> In article
>>> <479d4601$0$10796$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> "asdf" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
>>>>> are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
>>>>> needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
>>>>> pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
>>>>> interested in the substantial things in an informational or
>>>>> teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
>>>>> with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
>>>> websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely
>>>> here)
>>>> that are trying too hard to impress. ...
>>>> In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer
>>>> that the
>>>> design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content,
>>> I can see it is not going to be easy to get my idea across. You
>>> talk of a design enhancing and emphasising the content as if the
>>> design is something like a deodorant spray or an inessential coat
>>> of paint in the dunny.
>>>
>>
>> Then you missed the point. The 'design' is an intrinsically essential
>> part of communicating the message. Content PLUS presentation is the
>> message.
>
> How is the message differing from page to page to page on all the
> variously pages at www.csszengarden.com?

I looooooooove this one: http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/202/202.css,
although it's not great fun if you actually want to read it. The message I
get from that one is "CSS is great fun but you can really screw things up",
whereas the message I get from this one:
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=094/094.css is "CSS is great fun and
you can really enhance your presentation with it".

In any case, the markup has also been "designed" to be as flexible as
possible - it's a mass of divs and spans. To use the old house-building
model, the markup is the structure (which still has to be designed) and the
CSS is the decoration.

But I'm working myself into a corner as to where the "engineering" part
comes in. I was about to go on that the markup language itself was designed
this way, the browser was designed that way, the transfer protocols were
designed the other way et cetera et cetera, but then I thought if HTTP is
not engineering what exactly is? Maybe it doesn't exist?

+mrcakey

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On Jan 29, 1:31 am, Neredbojias wrote:

> > "What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)
>
> Uh, one meaningless subject at a time if you please...

That's a quote from some ol' 80's movie. :-) Though for the life of me
I can't recall what movie.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:55:57
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> Right. It was never a cup to begin with.
> >>
> >> > It is a cup without a bottom.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
> > is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
> > But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
> > Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
> > loss to describe such a cup.
>
> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?

Not really, no. What would you call the cups I have previously
described without being silly? Would you make up your own terms?

I can see that you have no patience or stomach for the enquiries
I have made to you to explore a distinction you yourself made.
There is no need to explain why this is so, I accept all
responsibility.

For anyone else that might be interested (highly unlikely to be
many ): The idea that a cup without a bottom is still a cup is
not some sort of joke. It is the serious point that if you do not
call it a cup, you have lost a perfectly proper and natural way
of describing it. This point is an objection to the common
practice of avoiding real issues by red herrings about words.

The point of probing the distinction between design and
engineering is to see what the true ingredients are of a designed
object, to distinguish in it the various aspects. These aspects
can be divorced from the actual histories and psychology of the
object and its creators.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479eaabe$0$10842$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> Folks, we've stumbled into the metaphysical now...

There is nothing metaphysical at all about any of this. People
are making a distinction between engineering and design and I am
wanting to know more about the nature of this. If you do not like
my questions, you are welcome to ask some of your own that
illuminate the distinction further? Questions that do not seem
the least bit metaphysical to you or in the least bit off topic.
But perhaps you are simply satisfied with your present
understanding of what makes for a good website, what ingredients
there are in general for such things? Fair enough, I would not
want to press you further. Every man knows what the limits of his
interest and patience is and it is not for others to dictate to
him.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:41:34 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:

>> > "What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)
>>
>> Uh, one meaningless subject at a time if you please...
>
> That's a quote from some ol' 80's movie. :-) Though for the life of me
> I can't recall what movie.

Hmm, maybe something rolling 'round in my subconscious but I can't
recollect it overtly. I have watched quite a few old movies in the past
year or so, though. "Ecstasy is my forte, fantasy my existence."

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
"mrcakey" wrote:

> Even when he's wrong (and I've rather lost track of whether I
> agree with him on this one!), he's funny.
>

Thank you mrcakey, I really only reply here to say that I am not
actually meaning to be funny on this whole subject. I know you
meant well.

It is actually quite an interesting one and probably soon it
should be hived off to its own thread. I will try to get
something together on it when I have time. It may interest some
people.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:15:37
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>> > is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>> > But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>> > Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>> > loss to describe such a cup.
>>
>> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
>
> Not really, no. What would you call the cups I have previously
> described without being silly? Would you make up your own terms?

Well, I might call the "punishment cup" a groin-drencher. Does that
help?

> I can see that you have no patience or stomach for the enquiries
> I have made to you to explore a distinction you yourself made.
> There is no need to explain why this is so, I accept all
> responsibility.

It's nice to see a woman who admits she's wrong when she's wrong at least
some of the time.

> For anyone else that might be interested (highly unlikely to be
> many ): The idea that a cup without a bottom is still a cup is
> not some sort of joke. It is the serious point that if you do not
> call it a cup, you have lost a perfectly proper and natural way
> of describing it. This point is an objection to the common
> practice of avoiding real issues by red herrings about words.

Who said one couldn't call it a cup? But what you call it and what it
is...

> The point of probing the distinction between design and
> engineering is to see what the true ingredients are of a designed
> object, to distinguish in it the various aspects. These aspects
> can be divorced from the actual histories and psychology of the
> object and its creators.

Since when does an inanimate object have a psychology? Hast thee been
perusing too many cartoon teleshows of late?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-205C50.09292530012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> <479eaabe$0$10842$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "asdf" wrote:
>
>> Folks, we've stumbled into the metaphysical now...
>
> There is nothing metaphysical at all about any of this. People
> are making a distinction between engineering and design and I am
> wanting to know more about the nature of this. If you do not like
> my questions, you are welcome to ask some of your own that
> illuminate the distinction further? Questions that do not seem
> the least bit metaphysical to you or in the least bit off topic.
> But perhaps you are simply satisfied with your present
> understanding of what makes for a good website, what ingredients
> there are in general for such things? Fair enough, I would not
> want to press you further. Every man knows what the limits of his
> interest and patience is and it is not for others to dictate to
> him.
>

No, it was not the argument about engineering and design I was calling
physical, it was the argument about the cup- though because you neatly and
conveniently managed to snip the context, I suppose that's to be expected.

....and it was supposed to be a funny (ok... humour was never my strong
point)... again, a point you appear to have missed.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:15:37
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
> >> > is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
> >> > But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
> >> > Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
> >> > loss to describe such a cup.
> >>
> >> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
> >
> > Not really, no. What would you call the cups I have previously
> > described without being silly? Would you make up your own terms?
>
> Well, I might call the "punishment cup" a groin-drencher. Does that
> help?
>

This is supposed to be a non-silly answer?

> > I can see that you have no patience or stomach for the enquiries
> > I have made to you to explore a distinction you yourself made.
> > There is no need to explain why this is so, I accept all
> > responsibility.
>
> It's nice to see a woman who admits she's wrong when she's wrong at least
> some of the time.
>

I was trying to be courteous to you. You are greatly
misunderstand many things.

> > For anyone else that might be interested (highly unlikely to be
> > many ): The idea that a cup without a bottom is still a cup is
> > not some sort of joke. It is the serious point that if you do not
> > call it a cup, you have lost a perfectly proper and natural way
> > of describing it. This point is an objection to the common
> > practice of avoiding real issues by red herrings about words.
>
> Who said one couldn't call it a cup? But what you call it and what it
> is...
>

The question is not about what we *can* call something. It is
about what it ought to be called. We both can agree that a cup
without a bottom is a rather different object, with a different
purpose to a cup with a bottom. The question still arises about
the status of the bottom in the cup that does have a bottom vis a
vis the distinction between engineering and design.


> > The point of probing the distinction between design and
> > engineering is to see what the true ingredients are of a designed
> > object, to distinguish in it the various aspects. These aspects
> > can be divorced from the actual histories and psychology of the
> > object and its creators.
>
> Since when does an inanimate object have a psychology? Hast thee been
> perusing too many cartoon teleshows of late?

Please add a "respectively" in the sentence:

"These aspects can be divorced from the actual histories and
psychology of - respectively - the object and its creators."

or better still parse it into:

"These aspects can be divorced from the actual histories the
object."

and

"These aspects can be divorced from the actual psychology of its
creators."

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article
<479faf0e$0$9725$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"asdf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-205C50.09292530012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article
> > <479eaabe$0$10842$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > "asdf" wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, we've stumbled into the metaphysical now...
> >
> > There is nothing metaphysical at all about any of this.
>
> No, it was not the argument about engineering and design I was calling
> physical, it was the argument about the cup-

There was nothing metaphysical about any of my remarks about
cups.

> ...and it was supposed to be a funny (ok... humour was never my strong
> point)... again, a point you appear to have missed.

I did not miss that you were being light hearted. You are missing
that an idiot like me can be serious on occasions.

--
dorayme

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:20:51
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008
>> 22:15:37 GMT dorayme scribed:
>>
>> >> > Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>> >> > is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>> >> > But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>> >> > Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>> >> > loss to describe such a cup.
>> >>
>> >> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
>> >
>> > Not really, no. What would you call the cups I have previously
>> > described without being silly? Would you make up your own terms?
>>
>> Well, I might call the "punishment cup" a groin-drencher. Does that
>> help?
>>
>
> This is supposed to be a non-silly answer?

Well, that is very much what you said (in different words.) However, I
admit that the term "punishment cup" makes me giddy.

>> > I can see that you have no patience or stomach for the enquiries
>> > I have made to you to explore a distinction you yourself made.
>> > There is no need to explain why this is so, I accept all
>> > responsibility.
>>
>> It's nice to see a woman who admits she's wrong when she's wrong at
>> least some of the time.
>>
>
> I was trying to be courteous to you. You are greatly
> misunderstand many things.

That could be. I have yet to achieve perfection although I strive for it
during commercials.

>> > For anyone else that might be interested (highly unlikely to be
>> > many ): The idea that a cup without a bottom is still a cup is
>> > not some sort of joke. It is the serious point that if you do not
>> > call it a cup, you have lost a perfectly proper and natural way
>> > of describing it. This point is an objection to the common
>> > practice of avoiding real issues by red herrings about words.
>>
>> Who said one couldn't call it a cup? But what you call it and what
>> it is...
>>
>
> The question is not about what we *can* call something. It is
> about what it ought to be called. We both can agree that a cup
> without a bottom is a rather different object, with a different
> purpose to a cup with a bottom. The question still arises about
> the status of the bottom in the cup that does have a bottom vis a
> vis the distinction between engineering and design.

Well, okay, a cup from which someone has, say, cut out the bottom could
certainly be called a "bottomless cup". But designing/engineering a ?
cup? without a bottom is impossible because !cups! have bottoms.

>> > The point of probing the distinction between design and
>> > engineering is to see what the true ingredients are of a designed
>> > object, to distinguish in it the various aspects. These aspects
>> > can be divorced from the actual histories and psychology of the
>> > object and its creators.
>>
>> Since when does an inanimate object have a psychology? Hast thee
>> been perusing too many cartoon teleshows of late?
>
> Please add a "respectively" in the sentence:
>
> "These aspects can be divorced from the actual histories and
> psychology of - respectively - the object and its creators."
>
> or better still parse it into:
>
> "These aspects can be divorced from the actual histories the
> object."
>
> and
>
> "These aspects can be divorced from the actual psychology of its
> creators."

Yes, that makes sense. I still don't know what it has to do with
bottomless non-cups, but - oh well.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

Travis Newbury wrote:

> Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
> the Amiga went.

2 or 3 years ago, I would have agreed. But Apple have started showing a
knack for taking an existing open source project, polishing it up and
creating a gem.

Look what they did when Microsoft seemed to be letting Internet Explorer
development on OSX slide: they took Konqueror's rendering engine, ported
it to Mac OS X, put some Aqua chrome around it and released it as Safari.
A few years down the line, Safari not only has close to 100% penetration
on Mac OS X, but it's now competing on Microsoft's home turf; WebKit (the
Safari rendering engine) has been improved so much that the Konqueror guys
are dropping their original engine in favour of it; and various Gecko-
based browsers (e.g. Epiphany) are thinking of going WebKit.

If Microsoft dropped Office for Mac, Apple could fork OpenOffice.org/
NeoOffice and have a decent suite within 6-12 months -- one that supported
Microsoft Office formats and was more at home on OS X, fitting in better
with the native look and feel, integrating with Apple Address Book,
Safari, etc.

Microsoft won't drop Office for Mac precisely because they're afraid of
that happening, and the inevitable Windows port (a la iTunes, Safari,
Bonjour, etc).

--
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 22:46.]

Looking Ahead to PHP 6
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/29/php6/

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

On 2008-01-30, Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>> Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
>> the Amiga went.
>
> 2 or 3 years ago, I would have agreed. But Apple have started showing a
> knack for taking an existing open source project, polishing it up and
> creating a gem.
>
> Look what they did when Microsoft seemed to be letting Internet Explorer
> development on OSX slide: they took Konqueror's rendering engine, ported
> it to Mac OS X, put some Aqua chrome around it and released it as Safari.
> A few years down the line, Safari not only has close to 100% penetration
> on Mac OS X, but it's now competing on Microsoft's home turf; WebKit (the
> Safari rendering engine) has been improved so much that the Konqueror guys
> are dropping their original engine in favour of it; and various Gecko-
> based browsers (e.g. Epiphany) are thinking of going WebKit.
>
> If Microsoft dropped Office for Mac, Apple could fork OpenOffice.org/
> NeoOffice and have a decent suite within 6-12 months -- one that supported
> Microsoft Office formats

That's much harder than making a browser based on KHTML though. For
HTML/CSS/JS there are open standards and specifications. For Office
software you'd have to reverse-engineer MS Office as quickly as they add
new features to it.

OpenOffice is a fine product if you like that kind of thing, but it
isn't as interoperable with MS Office as many people need, and it would
be hard to achieve that.

Macs seem to be quite popular as home computers. They're more
fashionable-looking, usually less noisy, get infested with viruses less,
and people associate PCs with work. You don't need Office software at
home much anyway, so I think people would still buy them.

Re: Just a little anecdotal evidence

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2008-01-30, Toby A Inkster wrote:
> > Travis Newbury wrote:
> >
> >> Oh please, if Microsoft pulled Office from the Mac it would go the way
> >> the Amiga went.
> >
> > 2 or 3 years ago, I would have agreed. But Apple have started showing a
> > knack for taking an existing open source project, polishing it up and
> > creating a gem.
> >
> > Look what they did when Microsoft seemed to be letting Internet Explorer
> > development on OSX slide: they took Konqueror's rendering engine, ported
> > it to Mac OS X, put some Aqua chrome around it and released it as Safari.
> > A few years down the line, Safari not only has close to 100% penetration
> > on Mac OS X, but it's now competing on Microsoft's home turf; WebKit (the
> > Safari rendering engine) has been improved so much that the Konqueror guys
> > are dropping their original engine in favour of it; and various Gecko-
> > based browsers (e.g. Epiphany) are thinking of going WebKit.
> >
> > If Microsoft dropped Office for Mac, Apple could fork OpenOffice.org/
> > NeoOffice and have a decent suite within 6-12 months -- one that supported
> > Microsoft Office formats
>
> That's much harder than making a browser based on KHTML though. For
> HTML/CSS/JS there are open standards and specifications. For Office
> software you'd have to reverse-engineer MS Office as quickly as they add
> new features to it.
>
> OpenOffice is a fine product if you like that kind of thing, but it
> isn't as interoperable with MS Office as many people need, and it would
> be hard to achieve that.
>
> Macs seem to be quite popular as home computers. They're more
> fashionable-looking, usually less noisy, get infested with viruses less,
> and people associate PCs with work. You don't need Office software at
> home much anyway, so I think people would still buy them.

Hardly fashionable looking, dear boy. I have a Mini - because its cheap,
small, and I don't need a number of permanently empty slots. I maxed out
the RAM and bought a LaCie external drive that sits nicely under the
Mini. Small footprint. The KVM components got recycled from the previous
Mini. The only thing it lacks is a second video port.

I have Office 2004 (prolly to be upgraded to Office 2008) for
compatibility with others, and I do all my page layout using Pages.
Meanwhile at work I have a Mac Pro with three 2-port video cards (three
screen used for network monitor displays). I have TextWrangler (free,
you know) for PHP development (PHP included), and I downloaded mysql and
installed that (not quite trivial but nearly).

Typically at work I have three Safari windows and 20 or so tabs open. I
could wish Safari had better JavaScript error reporting, but hey, I
haven't been a programmer for 40 years for nothing. I get by.

I wouldn't have said a Mac Pro is particularly fashionable looking -
although everybody went "Wow!" when I took it out of the box.