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

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?

On Jan 23, 9:07 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> 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.

<mantra>
Know your client, and know their customers.
</mantra>

> > 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)

On 23 Jan, 13:46, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb... [at] hotmail.com> 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.

On Jan 23, 10:27 am, Andy Dingley <ding... [at] codesmiths.com> 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...

George W Bush wrote in message
news:167d388f-d79b-4246-8320-0ef400b7588a [at] 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

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.

"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1 [at] 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

mrcakey wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1 [at] 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.

On Jan 23, 1:43 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> 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.

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/

On Jan 23, 3:31 pm, Toby A Inkster <usenet200... [at] tobyinkster.co.uk>
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.

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:43 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> 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.

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.

Harlan Messinger wrote:

> mrcakey wrote:
>> "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:5vpatlF1n81aoU1 [at] 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

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:31 pm, Toby A Inkster <usenet200... [at] tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 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

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.

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.

On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... [at] centralva.net>
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...

In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1 [at] mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> 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

On Jan 23, 4:11 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> 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.

On Jan 23, 6:40 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)

suck up....

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/

"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70d82fe9-054a-42b0-90da-4f35c578db44 [at] i29g2000prf.google groups.com...
> On Jan 23, 4:11 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet... [at] comcast.net> 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

"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5vppdjF1nnlejU1 [at] 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

"Neredbojias" <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2E9EB856474nanopandaneredbojias [at] 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

"Neredbojias" <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2E9F830368Bnanopandaneredbojias [at] 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

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-AB6AF1.10403124012008 [at] news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1 [at] mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> 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

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.

"Neredbojias" <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2F2D5E77490nanopandaneredbojias [at] 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

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

> "Neredbojias" <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A2E9F830368Bnanopandaneredbojias [at] 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.

On Jan 23, 5:40 pm, Neredbojias <monstersquas... [at] yahoo.com> 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

On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... [at] comcast.net> 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....

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... [at] comcast.net> 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/

On Jan 24, 11:45 am, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... [at] comcast.net> 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.

Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... [at] comcast.net> 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.

In article <fn9p80$9uv$1 [at] aioe.org>,
"mrcakey" <nospam [at] spamispoo.com> wrote:

> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-AB6AF1.10403124012008 [at] news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article <5vpg60F1n7jcqU1 [at] mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis [at] comcast.net> 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 <g> - if you provide
enough stylesheet alternatives somehow, what is left of the fixed
width concept?

--
dorayme

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.

In article <Xns9A2F2D5E77490nanopandaneredbojias [at] 194.177.96.78>,
Neredbojias <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> 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

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 <monstersquas... [at] yahoo.com> 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.