Anti Read: Want to build the next “hot” technology?

5 Sep 2007 - 4:02pm
483 reads
Jim Leftwich

Faith's take on Roger Costello's short blog entry is completely and
100% spot on. It's exactly what he's trying to get at, but
unfortunately doesn't take the time or amount of words to clarify.
It's a rather complex issue - "metadesign" or the design of systems
or component sets within which sub-embodiments and/or extensions will
be further designed.


Design of html/the Web
Design of Blogger or Wordpress or Myspace or
Design of the Second Life or World of Warcraft virtual worlds
Design of an OS GUI framework and interaction pattern rule base


Design of a website
Design of an individual blog or soc net page
Design of a SL or WOW place, building, character, or behavior, etc..
Design of an application for a particular OS

Most of the design in the world occurs at the design level, not the
meta-design level. But it's true that efforts in meta-design lead to
the opening up of entire worlds of opportunity to do sub-level design
and evolution. That's what he's saying, and it's completely true.

This same thing has been pointed out numerous times in the past.


James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, CA

> From: "Jarod Tang" <jarod.tang at>
> Date: September 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM PDT
> To: "Faith Peterson" <f.a.peterson at>
> Cc: discuss at
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Anti Read: Want to build the next
“hot” technology?
> Design it so that it enables complexity.
> agree with your analyze. still doubt if this is enough misleading:
> "I asked a very bright colleague, "What are technologies that
survive?" He
> responded, "Those technologies that enable
complexity." [Complexity is the
> ability of simple things to be composed to create complex things]"
> for e.g. , there complex enough technology such as A.I. , which
as we know
> is almost waste of research and application energy.
> Cheers
> -- Jarod
> On 9/5/07, Faith Peterson <f.a.peterson at> wrote:
> Another take on that post is that it merely states the obvious.
He's not
> saying make your app complex. He's talking about combining
simpler objects
> into composites.
> Examples: apps that make it possible for users to combine simple
> like buttons, input boxes, and so forth to create GUIs. Enabling
users to
> combine characters and formatting instructions to create documents.
> Enabling
> Web users to combine articles, comments, and open editing to
> information. Enabling real-world social network members/
organizers to
> create
> online networks (a la Ning, although I doubt anyone would hold up
Ning as
> an
> example of good design - it's only an example of enabling users
to create
> something complex out of simpler things).
> Non-software examples - combine images, words, and music to
create films.
> Combine ingredients to create food using a food processor, a
> that
> changed the way millions of people work in the kitchen. Combine
fthe means
> to cook foods that need precisely controlled head sources, those
that need
> constant, uniform heat (and make it possible to cook things in this
> category
> that are different sizes, or require different temperatures),
those that
> benefit from speed/steam, along with the means to cook all of
these at the
> time of one's own choosing and a simple cleanup - do all that and
you have
> the modern dual-power, dual-oven self-cleaning range with split
oven racks
> and dedicated simmer/high heat burners.
> That's not counter-design, it's what makes design necessary.
> My .02.
> -Faith
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Faith Peterson
> f.a.peterson at
> Schaumburg, IL
> On 9/5/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at> wrote:
> Want to build the next "hot" technology? Design it so that it
> complexity.<
> should say, this article is quite a anti experience to read, too
> abstract
> but you'll see some real example of it. such as lovely vista.
> fully disagree with it.
> Cheers
> -- Jarod

Syndicate content Get the feed