[Sigia-l] Just for you women out there

[Paola Kathuria]

Ziya Oz wrote:
> Gratuitous. Pandering. Misapplied. Crude.

I had trouble with 'misapplied' but I will have a go.

> [http://tinyurl.com/2tu3jv]

Gratuitous - definitely.

Pandering - sure; what's wrong with that?

Misapplied - does this mean that there were legitimate
  design goals but that they were poorly executed? If
  so, I'd probably agree - the laptop is over-the-top.

Crude - yup. When I first saw the laptop, I thought that
  a stenciled Hello Kitty would be far better than the
  crystals (and thus widen the market).

[earlier messages]

> do we still have the gumption to get outraged, and indeed,
> pass judgment?

Definitely.

Anyone who cares about their work (and wants to improve) must be
open to rational and objective feedback and criticism.

In academia, research is designed, and criticism is part of the
process for publication in order to maintain high standards.
Papers must be peer-reviewed before they can be published in a
reputable journal. Sometimes they're sent back for changes or
rejected out-right. Instead, here, people publish superficial
results from badly-designed usability studies; they don't
acknowledge feedback or criticism; their own web sites have
major design flaws and yet they're considered experts. Pah.

And, no, feedback isn't always just someone's opinion or else
what does 'expertise' mean.

> Well then, assuming *someone* can always be found to buy
> *anything* [...] can *anything* be considered 'good design'?

No.

Good design is rational, explainable and testable. It's like
good/bad software. Just because it works, doesn't mean the
code is good (just wait until the programmer leaves and
someone new has to add a new function). Similarly, just
because someone went to the trouble of designing, creating
and selling something, doesn't mean it's good design.


Paola
--
http://www.paolability.com/