Anti Read: Want to build the next ?hot? technology?
5 Sep 2007 - 4:08pm
6 years ago
So in simple and existing terms, we're are talking about designing things or designing systems right?
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 >