Bob W wrote: >> >...and it is indeed ugly (IMHO): >> >> I'm definitely what you would call "function-oriented": If a camera >> works well I don't concern myself with its looks much. But it does >> occur to me that it has to be frustrating to hire a big-name designer >> (and presumably pay his big-name fees) only to end up something that >> ugly as the end result. > >imo it's very rare that a so-called designer ever produces anything other >than hideous crap. There are few exceptions - the Porsche-designed Contax >RTS being what. What they do is not design, but styling. Since form follows >function it requires a real designer to design the camera in the first >place, based around fit, usability and so on. If they do the job right the >camera comes out beautiful and doesn't need a stylist. Bringing in a stylist >smacks of desperation and a camera designed by marketers, not by camera >makers.
Have you read "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman? A classic in the field and it says pretty much what you just did. http://www.powells.com/biblio/7-9780385267748-4 -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
