[Sigia-l] is bad design a choice?

[Skot Nelson]

On Oct-17-2005, at 12:46 PM, Dave Heller wrote:

> Bad Design = untrustworthy.

Huh?

How about this equation:
slick design = untrustworthy.

I don't think either one of those equivalencies works.

> I also think "bad search" as referenced above IS bad design. Design is
> NOT = aesthetics. Visual Design is NOT = to aesthetics.

I would agree, but with an extremely important addendum:

"design" when used without some form of adjective or noun to modify  
it, implies "visual design" or "graphic design" if you prefer.

The Context of the original post clearly implied visual, and not  
application, design.

Bad search is certainly bad application design, or bad information  
design, or something. But it is no "bad design".

If this was not the intent of the original post, then perhaps it was  
poorly worded.

> But even so, aesthetics creates a certain level of emotional response
> that effects the overall sentiment over time of a product.

Tell Wal Mart. Millions of Americans love their stuff, and think that  
those of us that don't shop there are elitist, liberal snobs.

> 17 million people trust eBay (and I use that term loosely) b/c there
> isn't another game even close to eBay in the arena. Monopolies allow
> for a lot of bad design.

Huh?

eBay is not a monopoly - there are any number of other auction,  
classifieds, free giveaway and other sites that people could (and do)  
choose to use. Craigslist, local newspapers with online classifieds,  
Freecycle are some examples. Ubid, Yahoo Auctions, onsale.com are  
alternative auction sites. You (and Alexander's mother) can use  
Google to find all kinds of alternatives.

eBay is by no definition of the term a Monopoly - particularly with  
Yahoo! as a competitor.

So I'm not sure than any point's actually been made here...
--
Scott Nelson
skot at penguinstorm.com
http://www.penguinstorm.com/