[Sigia-l] is bad design a choice?

[Lyle Kantrovich]

On 10/18/05, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> Design is a *solution* to a problem. There are good solutions and bad
> solutions. There are no good or bad designs per se.

Am I the only one that recognized this as self-contradicting?

If, as Ziya said: "Design = a *solution* to a problem." (which I'd agree with)

and: "There are no good or bad designs per se."

By substitution, that would mean: "There are no good or bad
<*solutions* to a problem> per se."

Yet Ziya said: "There are good solutions and bad solutions." (which
I'd agree with)

Either designs AREN'T solutions to problems OR there ARE good and bad
designs. (If there's not a problem to solve, then we just have art
without a purpose.)

To me this whole thing smells like the old "what is usable" debate. 
[Quick recap: Usability is a scale - a continuum of a product quality
aspect.  At some point you might deem something "usable" -- saying it
has "enough usability" to be suited for use.  Nevertheless, lots of
weekend warriors go around declaring things "aren't very usable"
without any real facts to base their opinion on.]

So clearly, some designs are better or worse than others...and at some
point (I'd assert that) a design can be declared "good" or "bad". 
Reasonable people might disagree on the criteria for what's "good." 
Is it "good enough" or "as good as it should be" or "as good as it
could be" or "flawless?"

Toss in the fact that we have no shared group understanding of what
constitutes and bounds "Design", and it's easy to see that this debate
is clearly one where everyone wil think that they are right in the
end.  ...and they will be -- no matter what opinion they held.  :-)

Until we define it, how can we decide it?

Maybe we can start here:
Bad Design: Boo.com
Good Design: the egg, photosynthesis...you get the idea
Designs that can be improved: just about everything man-made

--
Lyle

--------------------------
Lyle Kantrovich
Blog: Croc O' Lyle
http://crocolyle.blogspot.com