Nice article, Is Good Design Replicable? by Joshua Porter

Is Good Design Replicable? http://bokardo.com/archives/is-good-design-replicable/

The following pieces are very attractive,
"So, the obvious question to ask is: *Is there evidence that someone following a certain process produces great design every time?*"

"The problem with Apple, of course, is that their design process is completely shrouded in mystery. They may be using different design processes on each project, or on a project-by-project basis. Very few people know what goes on in Cupertino, so fantastic stories of "not doing research" or "genius design" abound. My guess is that the folks at Apple are brilliant, *but that their success is achieved in the same way that most success is: through hard work*."
Jarod: there's other factors for their amazing work, maybe as

1. the designer mind-set is put above engineering mind-set, which owes a lot to jobs
2. they really have good test while they can research on design in effective way ( more or less from personal daily experience)

"I wonder if the real issue is that most of the time designers simply don't know if what they're building is great, and they end up relying on process to get as far as they can."

Thanks Joshua.
Jarod

-- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

There is a quote attributed to Yogi Berra that I find relevant to discussion of the role of process in design,

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

To me process is like an Airline Pilot's preflight checklist and training.

Does the preflight check guarantee there's nothing wrong with the plane? No, but it's still a darn good idea all the same. Take off without enough fuel or a stuck control surface - now wouldn't you feel like a dope on the way down?

Suppose something goes wrong in flight; do the hours of simulator training assure a disaster wont occur? No, but it sure improves ones chances that the worst can be averted.

We designers have processes to keep us on track, make sure we've covered all contingencies, and documented our progress so we can learn from each project and improve over time. But there is always a human factor.

You may have two pilots with the same training and hours logged, but one is just better when things get really hairy. There is no reason for a profession like design to be any different.

All professions and trades have some level of training and certification : Doctors, Carpenters, Lawyers, Plumbers, Engineers, Nurses; and in each there are bad, good, and great ones. No process will ever change that.

I think the linked article has a similar spirit; process can be a useful tool, but it's no guarantee of good design.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38653

The linked article by Michael Beirut's worth a read, too. A designer's "process" is generally more subjective and sporadic than most are willing to admit.
http://www.designobserver.com/archives/entry.html?id=17485

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38653

To me process is like an Airline Pilot's preflight checklist and training.

Cool metaphor.
These days, a better format of the checklist will makes more sense, like a checklist of inspiring questions instead of statement?

Regards,
Jarod -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

A designer's "process" is generally more subjective and sporadic than most are willing to admit.

And definitely more subjective and sporadic than a potential manager or client is willing to hear. I tried telling it like it is once, believing I was in the company of people who understood that, beneath the surface, the process is in reality far less than stable. It didn't go over well.

Honesty, it turns out, isn't necessarily the best policy.

-r-

That's interesting. Sad that there aren't more enlightened people out there.

I 'spose it makes sense, though. A linear, compartmentalized process sounds good on paper, so it's become the "norm." In a culture that likes to flaunt its affinity toward thinking outside the box, its lack of acceptance of it in actuality is disappointing. Here's to changing hearts and minds!

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38653

Despite the mystery surrounding Apple, two things seem evident from what I have read and seen (of Jonathan Ive and Apple in general). One is that Ive is famous for making many, many prototypes and that does require a lot of hard work. The more he does it, of course, the more practice and insightful knowledge he builds up: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine /content /06 _39 /b4002414.htm

The other just as, if not more, important is that Apple has someone at the top who firmly believes in the need, beauty, power and buisness sense of great design and one would expect that filters through the rest of the company. From the top level through the mid-level managers to the bottom, I expect a lot of ideas (and hard work) are able to get through that in other companies gets blocked, twisted or group-thought to death. It's not that there aren't equally able or smart designers in other companies, it's just that it they aren't accorded the respect or position in the process to bring their ideas to fruition.

It's Apple's company culture that is the best piece of design work they have ever done.

(There must be some Apple folks on this list - I don't suppose they are in a position to spill the beans though. They're probably spitting out their morning coffee right now whilst filling in a health and safety form or something!

Best,

Andy

Andy Polaine

Interaction & Experience Design
Research | Writing | Education

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://www.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

"One of the hallmarks of the team I think is this sense of looking to be wrong, " said Ive at Radical Craft. "It's the inquisitiveness, the sense of exploration. It's about being excited to be wrong because then you've discovered something new."

I dont know if this real said there, but it's true in daily design.

--Jarod

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Andy Polaine andy at polaine.com wrote:

Despite the mystery surrounding Apple, two things seem evident from what I have read and seen (of Jonathan Ive and Apple in general). One is that Ive is famous for making many, many prototypes and that does require a lot of hard work. The more he does it, of course, the more practice and insightful knowledge he builds up: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine /content /06 _39 /b4002414.htm The other just as, if not more, important is that Apple has someone at the top who firmly believes in the need, beauty, power and buisness sense of great design and one would [trim]

-- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/