[Sigia-l] We could just use whiteboards instead.

[prai at prady.com]

> On the contrary, usefulness is completely a matter of the beholder and
> is very important to matters of design. This is why it is advantageous
> to allow users to alter things to suit their needs and preferences
> whenever possible (offset by the fact that this in itself is often a
> hard process to design a good UI for).
>
> That usefulness is a matter of the beholder is easy enough to prove.
> Something has usefulness if it is useful, the beholder is the person
> trying to use it, hence its usefulness is a function of both the product
> and the user (beholder). Q.E.D.

I have no problem at all if you are using the 'beholder' and 'user'
interchangibly. However, the original one "art lies in the eyes of the
beholder" is not so. Here 'beholder' is not really a 'user', as we use it.
This phrase is said in the context of 'beholder' being 'judge' or
'critique' or 'evaluator' of somebodies selfexpression/art. Can you see
difference in difference here?

> With art on the other hand the position of the artist himself or herself
> and/or some absolute concept of "beauty", "truth" or whatever it is that
> the particular critic believes art should strive for arguably (that is,
> according to some schools of criticism but not to others) is of value
> beyond that of any beholder or beholders.

It is confusing what you mean here. However, I can only validate that
'beholder' in the context of 'Art' is different that 'user' in our
context. And if I extent it further - 'user' is ultimate test of the
'design', however 'evaluation' (as it is 'critic' for art) is not user's
task (though, it may be a by-product).

> Darci's find them un-useful does not mean that others will.

Thank you. That was just one of my point too.

Pradyot Rai