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

5 Sep 2007 - 4:08pm
7 years ago
7 replies
510 reads
Mark Schraad
2006

So in simple and existing terms, we're are talking about designing things or designing systems right?

Mark

On Wednesday, September 05, 2007, at 05:03PM, "James Leftwich, IDSA" <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>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.
>
>Meta-design:
>
>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:
>
>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.
>
>Jim
>
>James Leftwich, IDSA
>Orbit Interaction
>Palo Alto, CA
>www.orbitnet.com
>
>
>
> > From: "Jarod Tang" <jarod.tang at gmail.com>
> > Date: September 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM PDT
> > To: "Faith Peterson" <f.a.peterson at gmail.com>
> > Cc: discuss at ixda.org
> > 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 gmail.com> 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
>objects
> > 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
>synthesize
> > 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
>technology
> > 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 gmail.com
> > Schaumburg, IL
> >
> >
> > On 9/5/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Want to build the next "hot" technology? Design it so that it
>enables
> > complexity.<
> >
> > http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/want-to-build-the-
>next-hot-technology-design-it-so-that-it-enables-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
>

Comments

5 Sep 2007 - 4:16pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Your point is taken, however I don't think "designing systems"
completely captures and describes the notion that "meta-design" does,
though I'll gladly admit it's a term pulled out rather quickly for
differentiation purposes.

The difference, as I see it, is that there are many kinds of
"systems," in which there will never be additional or sub-design or
build-out or extension occurring. So just the plain phrase, "design
of systems," is broader than what I was getting at.

The difference is in designing a system in which it's known from the
beginning that there will be sub-levels of design, extension, and
build-out done within the established (and future) componentry,
interrelationship rules, syntax, structural patterns, etc..

I guess it could maybe be better called Super-design (which would
work better with sub-design), and is a more system-oriented term.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, CA
www.orbitnet.com

On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> So in simple and existing terms, we're are talking about designing
> things or designing systems right?
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 05, 2007, at 05:03PM, "James Leftwich,
> IDSA" <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Meta-design:
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James Leftwich, IDSA
>> Orbit Interaction
>> Palo Alto, CA
>> www.orbitnet.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Jarod Tang" <jarod.tang at gmail.com>
>>> Date: September 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM PDT
>>> To: "Faith Peterson" <f.a.peterson at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: discuss at ixda.org
>>> 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 gmail.com> 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
>> objects
>>> 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
>> synthesize
>>> 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
>> technology
>>> 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 gmail.com
>>> Schaumburg, IL
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/5/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Want to build the next "hot" technology? Design it so that it
>> enables
>>> complexity.<
>>>
>>> http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/want-to-build-the-
>> next-hot-technology-design-it-so-that-it-enables-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
>>

5 Sep 2007 - 5:32pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Hi James,

Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand, corporate identity and most evident in software and web design. Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity or conversely the complexity varies significantly.

Am I missing something?

Mark

On Wednesday, September 05, 2007, at 05:16PM, "James Leftwich, IDSA" <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>Your point is taken, however I don't think "designing systems"
>completely captures and describes the notion that "meta-design" does,
>though I'll gladly admit it's a term pulled out rather quickly for
>differentiation purposes.
>
>The difference, as I see it, is that there are many kinds of
>"systems," in which there will never be additional or sub-design or
>build-out or extension occurring. So just the plain phrase, "design
>of systems," is broader than what I was getting at.
>
>The difference is in designing a system in which it's known from the
>beginning that there will be sub-levels of design, extension, and
>build-out done within the established (and future) componentry,
>interrelationship rules, syntax, structural patterns, etc..
>
>I guess it could maybe be better called Super-design (which would
>work better with sub-design), and is a more system-oriented term.
>
>Jim
>
>James Leftwich, IDSA
>Orbit Interaction
>Palo Alto, CA
>www.orbitnet.com
>
>
>
>On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
>> So in simple and existing terms, we're are talking about designing
>> things or designing systems right?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 05, 2007, at 05:03PM, "James Leftwich,
>> IDSA" <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Meta-design:
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> James Leftwich, IDSA
>>> Orbit Interaction
>>> Palo Alto, CA
>>> www.orbitnet.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "Jarod Tang" <jarod.tang at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: September 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM PDT
>>>> To: "Faith Peterson" <f.a.peterson at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: discuss at ixda.org
>>>> 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 gmail.com> 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
>>> objects
>>>> 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
>>> synthesize
>>>> 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
>>> technology
>>>> 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 gmail.com
>>>> Schaumburg, IL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/5/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Want to build the next "hot" technology? Design it so that it
>>> enables
>>>> complexity.<
>>>>
>>>> http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/want-to-build-the-
>>> next-hot-technology-design-it-so-that-it-enables-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
>>>
>
>
>

5 Sep 2007 - 7:28pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Nah, I think we're saying the same thing, but you were more concise
and correct as to where this thinking stems. I'd been introduced to
systems engineering back in the early '80s and it's always been part
of my way of thinking and approach to things.

I used to have "Systems Design" on my cards, back in the 80s and 90s,
but was never sure if people understood all the things that implied.
This just points out that it would probably be a good thing for
design students to be run through a systems thinking course as part
of their education.

Jim

On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working
> in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your
> description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the
> systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand,
> corporate identity and most evident in software and web design.
> Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can
> also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity
> or conversely the complexity varies significantly.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Mark

8 Sep 2007 - 6:48pm
Taneem Talukdar
2005

Or alternatively, students could also perhaps take an *entire degree program
* in Systems Design... :)

Regards,

Taneem Talukdar
Candidate for Bachelor of Applied Science in Systems Design Engineering (4th
year)
University of Waterloo, ON, Canada

http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/
http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/systems_design_definition.htm
http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/course_curriculum.htm

On 9/5/07, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>
> Nah, I think we're saying the same thing, but you were more concise
> and correct as to where this thinking stems. I'd been introduced to
> systems engineering back in the early '80s and it's always been part
> of my way of thinking and approach to things.
>
> I used to have "Systems Design" on my cards, back in the 80s and 90s,
> but was never sure if people understood all the things that implied.
> This just points out that it would probably be a good thing for
> design students to be run through a systems thinking course as part
> of their education.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working
> > in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your
> > description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the
> > systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand,
> > corporate identity and most evident in software and web design.
> > Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can
> > also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity
> > or conversely the complexity varies significantly.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Mark
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

8 Sep 2007 - 7:13pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Excellent! That's certainly true!

Jim

On Sep 8, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Taneem Talukdar wrote:

> Or alternatively, students could also perhaps take an entire degree
> program in Systems Design... :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Taneem Talukdar
> Candidate for Bachelor of Applied Science in Systems Design
> Engineering (4th year)
> University of Waterloo, ON, Canada
>
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/systems_design_definition.htm
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/course_curriculum.htm
>
> On 9/5/07, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
> Nah, I think we're saying the same thing, but you were more concise
> and correct as to where this thinking stems. I'd been introduced to
> systems engineering back in the early '80s and it's always been part
> of my way of thinking and approach to things.
>
> I used to have "Systems Design" on my cards, back in the 80s and 90s,
> but was never sure if people understood all the things that implied.
> This just points out that it would probably be a good thing for
> design students to be run through a systems thinking course as part
> of their education.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working
> > in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your
> > description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the
> > systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand,
> > corporate identity and most evident in software and web design.
> > Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can
> > also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity
> > or conversely the complexity varies significantly.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Mark

9 Sep 2007 - 1:40am
Jarod Tang
2007

Hi James:

>From my limited experience, what you saying may hit the problem (i also
think about it for some time, no serious detail results until now).
For interaction design, the difference with other design domain, is
thinking/designing in context (so persona's goal, scenario, time factors
come ). it's just the alternate/frequently used phrase in system design for
long time.
>From other point, the system theory/thinking/engineering/designing has run
for some time, which really enable us to have better understanding of the
designed target; especially, for the case of service design and process
design.
And, from this point, it will solve (partly ? ) the "foundation/elements of
interaction design" problem, which be discussed/talked/(hot speaking
without listen to each other, ;) )

Thanks very much for your inspiring hints.

Cheers
-- Jarod

On 9/6/07, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>
> Nah, I think we're saying the same thing, but you were more concise
> and correct as to where this thinking stems. I'd been introduced to
> systems engineering back in the early '80s and it's always been part
> of my way of thinking and approach to things.
>
> I used to have "Systems Design" on my cards, back in the 80s and 90s,
> but was never sure if people understood all the things that implied.
> This just points out that it would probably be a good thing for
> design students to be run through a systems thinking course as part
> of their education.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working
> > in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your
> > description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the
> > systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand,
> > corporate identity and most evident in software and web design.
> > Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can
> > also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity
> > or conversely the complexity varies significantly.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Mark
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
IxD for better life style.

http://jarodtang.blogspot.com

9 Sep 2007 - 11:08am
Mark Schraad
2006

I think I have mentioned this here before, but when it is hard to get
design students to even have an interest is learning something called
systems design, courses in css/html are extremely popular. So, you
teach the basics of systems design using css...

On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Taneem Talukdar wrote:

> Or alternatively, students could also perhaps take an entire degree
> program in Systems Design... :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Taneem Talukdar
> Candidate for Bachelor of Applied Science in Systems Design
> Engineering (4th year)
> University of Waterloo, ON, Canada
>
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/systems_design_definition.htm
> http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/course_curriculum.htm
>
> On 9/5/07, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
> Nah, I think we're saying the same thing, but you were more concise
> and correct as to where this thinking stems. I'd been introduced to
> systems engineering back in the early '80s and it's always been part
> of my way of thinking and approach to things.
>
> I used to have "Systems Design" on my cards, back in the 80s and 90s,
> but was never sure if people understood all the things that implied.
> This just points out that it would probably be a good thing for
> design students to be run through a systems thinking course as part
> of their education.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry if I came off a bit flipant. But many of us have been working
> > in systems design doing, from what I can tell from your
> > description, just this for years. It certainly stems from the
> > systems engineering methodologies, but is prevelent in brand,
> > corporate identity and most evident in software and web design.
> > Though many systems are fairly closed and heavily managed, they can
> > also be very open and adaptable. Likewise the degree of simplicity
> > or conversely the complexity varies significantly.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Mark
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

Syndicate content Get the feed