Comments on: Design and Usability: Part 1 http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/ Suffering from chronic idiocy since 1977 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 04:03:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Web Designer http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1442 Web Designer Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:53:02 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1442 I think functionality is a little bit more important but we defitely should consider aesthetics as well. I totally agree with Scrivs. It is scientifically proven that f.ex. drugs that look attractive have better effect. http://astra-design.com/ I think functionality is a little bit more important but we defitely should consider aesthetics as well. I totally agree with Scrivs. It is scientifically proven that f.ex. drugs that look attractive have better effect.

http://astra-design.com/

]]> By: Andrei Herasimchuk http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1441 Andrei Herasimchuk Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:00:56 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1441 I need to correct my comment in here, for the record. Rand discusses the Shakers, not the Quakers, in his book. I always get that mixed up. (And I went to school in Pennsylvania to boot!) As for the Google exercise, I'm hoping more people will find the time try it out. I need to correct my comment in here, for the record. Rand discusses the Shakers, not the Quakers, in his book. I always get that mixed up. (And I went to school in Pennsylvania to boot!)

As for the Google exercise, I’m hoping more people will find the time try it out.

]]> By: waylman http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1440 waylman Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:11:02 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1440 <a href='http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2003_12_22_index.html#107212081560184833' rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a chance to prove Andrei's point (about Google anyway). Create your own stylesheet for Google, <a href='http://www.csszengarden.com/' rel="nofollow">CSS Zend Garden</a> style. Cool! Maybe I'll give this a try when and if I find the time. Still haven't even started on my Zed garden idea. Maybe someday. Here is a chance to prove Andrei’s point (about Google anyway). Create your own stylesheet for Google, CSS Zend Garden style. Cool! Maybe I’ll give this a try when and if I find the time. Still haven’t even started on my Zed garden idea. Maybe someday.

]]> By: Didier Hilhorst http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1439 Didier Hilhorst Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:02:09 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1439 Andrei: first of all you should not apologize for rambling. That was a most excellent comment. And, honestly, I think you expressed some of the opinions, feelings and ideas I have myself. Instead of elaborating on the matters you discussed in your comment here I will dedicate another post to it, which will be a good transition to my final post. Because however important aesthetics are, it is crucial to take into account certain factors affecting usability or functionality when designing - such as target audience and product or service, for example. But more on that later, in <strong>Part 3</strong>. So, in <strong>Part 2</strong> I will relate some of my own experiences to your statement that poor usability or functionality is (or is not) related to poor aesthetics exclusively. Andrei: first of all you should not apologize for rambling. That was a most excellent comment. And, honestly, I think you expressed some of the opinions, feelings and ideas I have myself. Instead of elaborating on the matters you discussed in your comment here I will dedicate another post to it, which will be a good transition to my final post. Because however important aesthetics are, it is crucial to take into account certain factors affecting usability or functionality when designing — such as target audience and product or service, for example. But more on that later, in Part 3. So, in Part 2 I will relate some of my own experiences to your statement that poor usability or functionality is (or is not) related to poor aesthetics exclusively.

]]> By: Andrei Herasimchuk http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1438 Andrei Herasimchuk Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:36:41 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1438 I disagree that one's desire for aesthetic quality neccessarily interferes with usability or functionality. <b>Paul Rand</b> has a great discussion of aesthetics in his last book, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/35moq" rel="nofollow">From Lascaux to Brooklyn</a>, where he comments on the Quaker's and their work with furniture, along with many other examples. The aesthetic quality of something is intrinsically locked with how functional and usable it is. When something lacks usability but is pretty to look at it, what is missing is really aesthetic quality. It's just too many people don't relate the concept of aesthetic to anything past the surface level. Take Google as an example. It's is very functional, but about as poor a rendering of information design as there ever was. IMO, it's has a very poor, even amateurish, aesthetic quality to it. Does this need to be the case? No. In fact, if <b>Edward Tufte</b> were given a chance to redesign Google's Search Results page, I'm sure we would all find that the end result would be more pleasing on the eye and <i>more usable</i> in the process. By the way, I think your CSS navigation example is a case in point. Not only does it look better than most boring navigational widgets we see on web sites today, I would argue it's more usable because the visual clues of selection and animation make for a design that works on more levels. So, I ask you not don't back down in you desire for aesthetic quality! We just need to get the design community pushing the boundaries, and bringing the level of quality to higher levels. We need to stop apologizing for the things we do, and the things we know will improve the experience of the those who live on this planet with us. Sorry to ramble... I disagree that one’s desire for aesthetic quality neccessarily interferes with usability or functionality. Paul Rand has a great discussion of aesthetics in his last book, From Lascaux to Brooklyn, where he comments on the Quaker’s and their work with furniture, along with many other examples.

The aesthetic quality of something is intrinsically locked with how functional and usable it is. When something lacks usability but is pretty to look at it, what is missing is really aesthetic quality. It’s just too many people don’t relate the concept of aesthetic to anything past the surface level.

Take Google as an example. It’s is very functional, but about as poor a rendering of information design as there ever was. IMO, it’s has a very poor, even amateurish, aesthetic quality to it. Does this need to be the case? No. In fact, if Edward Tufte were given a chance to redesign Google’s Search Results page, I’m sure we would all find that the end result would be more pleasing on the eye and more usable in the process.

By the way, I think your CSS navigation example is a case in point. Not only does it look better than most boring navigational widgets we see on web sites today, I would argue it’s more usable because the visual clues of selection and animation make for a design that works on more levels.

So, I ask you not don’t back down in you desire for aesthetic quality! We just need to get the design community pushing the boundaries, and bringing the level of quality to higher levels. We need to stop apologizing for the things we do, and the things we know will improve the experience of the those who live on this planet with us.

Sorry to ramble…

]]> By: Scrivs http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1437 Scrivs Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:20:42 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1437 The wonderful thing about design and aesthetics is that it has been scientifically proven that products with better looking designs are perceived to be easier to use. A great read on this is Don Norman's new book, Emotional Design. The irony of it all though is everything he talks about clashes with his business partner Nielsen. The wonderful thing about design and aesthetics is that it has been scientifically proven that products with better looking designs are perceived to be easier to use.

A great read on this is Don Norman’s new book, Emotional Design. The irony of it all though is everything he talks about clashes with his business partner Nielsen.

]]> By: Keith http://superfluousbanter.org/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1436 Keith Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:40:17 +0000 http://superfluousbanter.org/beta/archives/2003/12/design-and-usability-part-1/#comment-1436 Happy Holidays to you as well. Something I'm constantly having to explain to people is that Web design, largely because of the factors you mention, is definitely not the same as graphic design. They're related on some levels, but there are very large differences. Happy Holidays to you as well.

Something I’m constantly having to explain to people is that Web design, largely because of the factors you mention, is definitely not the same as graphic design.

They’re related on some levels, but there are very large differences.

]]>