Pauric: "I would restate the issue you describe as too much design effort on creating delight, part of the 'essential' granted but, at the cost of defining the core goals. This results in feature creep in my view (and gmail is well down that road now)."
My thinking exactly, Pauric! I also very much agree that it's useful to look to what works and doesn't work in nature. Castles in the sky are built on weak foundations, and we might do better if we looked for examples outside the confines of our narrow specializations. I walk in the woods a lot. More than 2,500 years ago, LaoTzu said: "Be at one with all these living things which, having arisen and flourished, return to the quiet whence they came, like a healthy growth of vegetation falling back upon the root." In programming/design, I usually call this root the "core." But it's the same exogenous idea. Whether it's a tree or a design concept or a civilization, I think we'll do better by tending to root needs and guarding against being unsustainably ambitious (I'm not advocating conservatism so much as solid structure). I love the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright, but some of his most beautiful homes have not held up well for this very reason. All the points you're making also tie into principles of universal design, Pauric, which I see as a sensible way forward in many disciplines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design Simple structures always prevail over complexity. Study a beehive or a spider web; each relies on one or two very strong and flexible concepts. The accessibility question is at least partly one of whether we want to do the job once in a way that accomodates most people well, or do it once in a way that accomodates elite users -- development oriented toward a diverse human community, or survival of the fittest? I'm not a pessimistic person, but I think realistically we must assume that we will not have infinite resources to sustain and power our complexity, either. I'm inclined to get in, get the job done and get out without entanglements. Here's the catch, the elephant in the living room that we don't want to talk about: If I own a design firm founded on the principle of providing the coolest, most cutting-edge product in this particular market ... I don't even need to finish the sentence, do I? Is it harder to sell simplicity if it truly is the best solution? I guess that's for the salespeople to answer, but many people before us have proved that great design can be elegantly simple. ... Which brings us back to your Einstein reference, Pauric. Right on the mark. Thanks! Jeff Seager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=23821 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
