[Sigia-l] don't pick and refuse me

[Derek R]

Ziya wrote:
>| Catering to users begins by understanding 
>| that they are not designers. [...]
>| Let me repeat this one last time, users are *not*
>| designers, they are not expected to understand/apply
>| finer points of design
 
I could tell you how every being has *a right* to decide their own
destiny. That we are all *both* genuine and capable. That *partiality*
is akin to fascism -- that it is irresponsible and unethical to support
a viewpoint which suggests one individual knows better (by any means)
than another individual -and moreover- the 'more knowledgeable'
individual has *a right,* as you continually state Ziya, to 'correct'
and 'control' the other based on perceived self-superiority, or
perceived inferiority in the other.

This is dangerous behavior.  Every being has *a right* to make their own
decisions. Think of it as a 'Prime Directive' or 'QA' for sacred future
ages. Otherwise, we are 'controlled' by someone, like Ziya (a heavy
reckoning), and I, for one, will fight against being controlled (no
freedom) using everything at my disposal -- my cause (the cause of the
individual) being 'just,' and my quarrel being honorable.
-->
http://bobmarley.com/songs/lyrics/war.lyrics.txt
A=A=A

With that said, A designer/creator is not bound to answer for the
particular endings of their designs/creations (must show compassion).
Boniface Lau is right in stating "what is appropriate is very subjective
and varies among users and environments" -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0211/0417.html

Things being subjective (as it is), we must remember subjectivity is
entirely conceptual in nature -- that *all* conceptions are equally
arbitrary, being only conceptions (A=A=A). This is the first rule of
general semantics -->
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0937298018/

Those which have no stomach towards this 'freedom of truth' -- the
*right* of particular existence -- I would ask to pleasantly depart. I
do not want (as an individual) to be in that person's company, or to be
conjoined with one who *fears fellowship* and seeks to 'correct' and
'control.' So that, if Ziya is right that practicing respect is awkward
or unattainable in design/creation, then, may I be the most offending
soul alive.


>| ..of all the interviews on great writers, photographers,
>| musicians, poets, painters, etc., not once did I come 
>| across anyone claiming that they create for their user, 
>| reader, listener, audience, etc. Great design, like great
>| art is not reversed-engineered or poll-driven

Art is 100% ritually-governed. That is the definition of art --
something which is *mutually ratified* and *ritually governed.* Anything
which does not 'create for the user' cannot be art -- and cannot be
design (in the practical sense of the word we are using here). In
absence of 'creating for the user,' one can only be practicing therapy
(attendance) as opposed to letting something exist
(creation/independence) so that it may be appreciated and valued/judged
(an activity which requires an audience.)

Frankly, I'm dumbfounded what would prompt someone to suggest 'great'
writers, photographers, musicians, etc. ignore, or do not consider,
their audiences. The *whole point* of art is to 'reverse-engineer' or be
'poll-driven,' otherwise, it's therapy! (personal)

"Designers need to remember that they are designing for the users, not
for the designers themselves." -- Boniface -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0211/0421.html
	  
	  
_______________________
	 
"I am the stone which the builders refused." Psalm 118:22