[IxDA Discuss] Simplicity is Not Understood

[Esteban Barahona]

you're spot on. I created an origami module after programming classes in
Java (<3 it) and some in C/C++ (not for me...). It will be uploaded later...
the idea is to make the instructions available on a free (not public domain
though) elegantly presented way (so it will take time).

anyway, my point is basically the same as yours. IxDers are a bunch that has
the potential position, knowledge background and talent/creativity to be
exactly in the center of the Venn's Diagram of Human Knowledge. Or the
center of a subsystem of the interesting bits, Not more! (KISS... Keep it
Simple, Stupid)... IxDers have various different backgrounds. But being in
the center of this knowledge modules and creativity is basically what I
think keeps IxD as a valid proffesion (even though each IxDer may have a
different WRITTED concept).

2007/1/18, Josh Viney <jviney at gmail.com>:
>
> "Can we design towards elegance?"
>
> It may true that elegance can really only be measured after the fact, and
> it's probably too subjective a descriptor anyway. But I like to think of
> it
> as something that once seen can be understood. Apple designs elegant
> products, and, in my opinion, even their packaging could be described as
> elegant. They're not the only ones. Car manufacturers, architects, fashion
> designers all use elegance as a goal for their products. Why should
> software
> be different?
>
> I described elegance as synergy between technology, psychology and the
> aesthetic. It is the end result of a concerted effort on the part of
> developers, designers, marketers, usability professionals, and business
> management. It requires work, talent, and vision. IxDAers are in prime
> position to help bring it all together.
>
> Strategically, I would make elegance one of the high level goals of the
> product that all decisions would be weighed against.
>
> It would require that all stakeholders keep it as their highest goal,
> possibly on a little post-it note on their monitor.
>
> Tactically speaking, it requires that users are understood (usability and
> psychology), that technology is treated as a means to an end not as an end
> in and of itself (pick the right tools for the job), and that design
> brings
> it all together like glue (make it look pretty). The product must always
> be
> considered in it's entirety. As soon as we get myopic, we lose perspective
> and end up creating Frankenstein's Monster.
>
> The saying "less is more" comes to mind, but I also consider that every
> part
> of the product must be justifiable. If something doesn't add value, remove
> it. Clutter is the arch-enemy of elegance.
>
> Fight entropy.
>
> - Josh Viney
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>



-- 
http://www.zensui.org