Core Design: September 2006 Archives

Main | October 2006 »

September 28, 2006

Fotos

Posted by Yan Cao at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)

September 25, 2006

John Maeda's Simplicity

I found the text more influential than being a reference, because I think that a lot of technological and financial/marketing issues are not considered in the text. It seems like his writings are only focused on the unlimited design flexibility. However, usually technology is something that drives the design towards a direction. There were no touch'n'roll (ipod) style controls before that, so this design is something that comes with new technology.
Also, he considers the latest ipod as the best design (I think the first one is better), but he never touches the numbers: how many did it sell? Did how many people buy the complex remote controls instead of simple ones? Same with the phones, too. Sometimes the most popular one might not be the one that makes the real numbers. So I was looking for some proof for his thesis on simplicity on design. Also, I didn't find the dots representation and the controls resemblence that real.
"SHE" idea is cool though, it samples the basic three thinks that is really influential in design process. More they suit with the technology and manufacturing, better the product becomes.

Posted by Mehmet Ascioglu at 02:10 PM | Comments (0)

Simplicity

I can't say I agree with Maeda's laws, and it definately doesn't apply to everything. His comments seems to be gear more towards consumer electronics, websites, and gui's. I think today's ADD generation would appreciate his laws of simplicity, but there are certain things that need an abundant of options. I can't imagine if we all the sudden decided to "simplfy" linux commands. The richness of options is what makes them works so well. I guess in a way, how options are exposed is a certain level of Simplicity, but a lot of what works/what doesnt depends on personal taste.

This reading reminds me of Norman's "Desing of Everyday Things"

I think taking advantage of people's intuition - how consumers (try to) use a product that they had never seen before - is a more productive approach towards design.

Posted by Benjamin Chao at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)

The power of Simplicity

The idea of this article “The laws of simplicity” perfectly work on my personal experience on IM software usage in Taiwan. ICQ, my first IM software which was hot during my high school life, became most popular IM with the blossom of internet age; it got simple interface, strong function and stable quality.

After a couple years, it updated several times and got more complex function and I feel more confuse when more unnecessary function add into it. Not only me but the majority of users stopped using it and start to use MSN messenger just because the same reason what we use ICQ before, SIMPLE and STABLE.

Now, MSN live version still keep adding lots function into it, but I can tell they still trying to make it easy to use although it costs more and more memory. However, new extremely simple IM software, Google talk, by the company who knows power of simplicity most was start to impact this area. Therefore, I am still keeping my eyes on the trend, develop and design of IM software. It’s great example to show the power of simplicity.

Posted by Hung Glenn at 12:10 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2006

Form-Over-Function

There exists a dichotomy between functionality and design. The main obstacle is trying to find the right balance between the two; usually one must sacrifice design for functionality or vice versa.

So what do consumers crave? I believe that the average person would sacrifice ease-of-use for a pretty package. I think Apple is a master of design, when it comes to all their products: laptops, computers, mp3 players, etc. They know what the market wants, and that is simplicity and beauty. All their products have dominated the markets, ranging from their iBooks to their iPods. There's a reason that iPod is outselling Sony HD mp3 players, even though Sony is in a better position, straddling both the music and electronics industries.

I personally find most modern remote controls extremely intimidating, and I probably will never ever use 90% of the buttons. More buttons translates to more complexity. So, though the 3rd generation iPod's interface might not be the most user-friendly, it definitely is the most simple, and approachable.

Even Creative Zen, another popular mp3 player, followed suite. The older models of the Zen Touch used to have seperate buttons for all the different functions. The new generatoion Zen Vision stripped all those buttons in favor of 4 large, sleek "zones". Now the new design is simple, and probably less intuitive, but my guess is it will sell better than the Zen Touch.

After all, as Maeda argues, in the end it's all about giving off a "perception" - even if it’s through deception. These basic, combined interfaces give the perception of being easy-to-use, and user-friendly. I'm not arguing that designers should (or do) forgo functionality over form, but that it is less of a priority.

Posted by Yasmin Elayat at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

The Laws of Simplicity

I was going along with some of Maeda's statements, but I completely disagree with his opinions of the iPod design evolution. He describes the second iteration of the iPod design as having an "unattractive row [of buttons] at the top" and praises the newest model's design with the buttons on the wheel itself. First, I think the four buttons at the top of the wheel create a much cleaner design than that which is present on either the original or newest models' faces. Second, there is more to design than appearance, and the newest wheel design requires the user to apply an exact amount of pressure necessary to scroll the menu, but not accidentally press the buttons. I find that extremely frustrating. I just want to press my thumb into the wheel and scroll, not have to lightly press it so I don't accidentally skip to the next song. I don't think putting everything together is always best. I am a fan of discrete design.

Posted by Bryan Wall at 05:04 PM | Comments (0)

It's a simple formula: IF (temp > MAX_TEMP)...

My initial reaction to the O-Ring Damage graphs/plots was that they were created within a different context than convincing NASA officials to postpone the Challenger launch.

I'm a S/W Engineer, and in my field, I always had to communicate with clients with varying ranges of technical understanding. It is fundamentally understood that one must understand their target audience and present their information accordingly; we just want to get our point across.

The obstacles one might face when presenting/displaying information are: time, creativity, context, and target audience. For the NASA Engineers, the context was clear: proven how temperatures affect O-Ring resiliency. Target Audience: NASA officials/non-Engineers. Time: not much.

The essential problem with these graphs was not an issue of technical jargon or incomprehensive graphs - it was an issue of poor communication. The O-Ring Graphs were cluttered with unnecessary images and were not plotting the correct data against each other - i.e. they were out of context. I do not believe that the NASA Engineers created any kind of data plot to show the officials, but instead regurgitated different documents they had archived, hoping that the officials can extrapolate the information themselves, with the help of their side notes.

Posted by Yasmin Elayat at 03:40 AM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2006

Re: engineers

I'm sorry, but I disagree with Mehmet's comments. Yes, the large amount of data presented probably was very familiar to the engineers at hand, but considering the time constraints and the potential for disaster being so high, I feel they should have been more focused. Though I am not an engineer, I did attend an engineering school during my undergrad. One thing I did find to be a problem was the communication from engineering speak into layman's terms. Often engineers are very intelligent and know so much about their discipline but they aren't very good at translating technical know how into a clear, focused, and concise form of language. Numbers and formulas may speak worlds but if the one's attending your presentation don't quickly pick up on these things, the information is lost. In this situation, the engineers weren't the ones needing to be persuaded but the managers and ones giving the signals at launch. It was of utmost importance for them keep things simple, logical, and very understandable despite who the audience was.

Posted by Rory Nugent at 02:21 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2006

engineers

Well, besides all the truth about the things said in the text, I have some doubts about how much do we have to judge this engineers presentation. We are (and the author is) looking from an outsider's view, which we don't get anything from engineers' presentation and charts. But those data may mean a lot to the guys who have been working in NASA for 3 years, and it can be understandable if they didn't have the time to make such well-meant charts.

Well, that's my idea; from an engineer's point of view..

Posted by Mehmet Ascioglu at 03:26 PM | Comments (0)

The power of Design

This writing makes me perceive the valuable truth yet once more. ‘ There is the power of Design. ‘ Some people consider design is just sentimental and fancy thing. But , as I saw some instruction in this writing , design is more than just art. Whem I attended pedagogy in college, teacher showed me two essential quality for presenter. First thing is how to point out what listener is lacking ( or wanting ), Second thing is how to make people concentrate on presentation. I think these things are also related to most of the fields. In order to get the result what presenter intend , the way to be convinced is necessary with the view of design. It means even engineers have to adopt the design. Of course, for this kind of purpose , ITP must exist.

Posted by Jung Jung at 03:14 PM | Comments (0)

Visual Display

This detailed examination of the Challenger incident reveals how visual displays could result in forming unintended conclusions. Sometimes we would sit back and relax whenever there is enough evidence shown and there has been adequate of investigation done, but does the intended persuasion deliver? In this particular case, although a lot of efforts have been put into assessing the possibility of failure of launches, the charts that were demomentated next day failed to show the crucial links thus incapable to shake the panel’s decision. Given a long period of thinking and processing time, maybe the audience is able to spot the flaws and make the right choice, but how rare does this ever happen? This is the question pondered upon. It therefore awakened our awareness that it is the presenter’s responsibility not the audience’s to make logic clear on the visual display.

Posted by Yan Cao at 02:57 AM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2006

Convincing Analysis

I think one of the mistakes many engineers/scientists make when presenting information is not realizing who their audiences are. They often fail to realize that the general public doesn't share their expertise and understand their jargons, which makes their arguments extremely difficult to understand. The Thiokol documents was a classic example of this. If they had reviewed their documents with someone not from their field, they would quickly realize that their case was neither convincing nor clearly presented. That's why it is always helpful to have an outside eye to review one's work. It also helps to require engineers/scientists interact with those outside their field, so that ppl can learn to communicate with others.

Posted by Benjamin Chao at 11:49 PM | Comments (0)

Week 1 reading impressions

After reading the deconstruction of the failed Challenger shuttle launch explanations, I had a good understanding of what made a convincing argument, but it seemed a bit like the author wasn't so sure. The author praised Feynman's explanation, but then critiqued it as scientifically weak for not providing enough control cases as to be actually valid. I found that strange. It certainly wasn't a perfect experiment, but it did demonstrate the basis for the argument.

It was obvious from the photocopies that the original persuading arguments were too vague and poorly displayed to be easily read, even if the reader had had prior knowledge of the subject matter. The displays with the rocket drawings didn't help either. I agreed with the author that the rocket shapes were unnecessary and added too much clutter. Their presence detracted from the usefulness of the evidence.

I have to say that knowing how to properly display data in graph form seems like rudimentary knowledge. I believe we learned those sorts of things in high school, so I find it surprising that engineers, especially NASA engineers, failed to do it correctly.

Core Design