Nice article, Is Good Design Replicable? by Joshua Porter

13 Feb 2009 - 12:22am
5 years ago
3 replies
744 reads
Jarod Tang
2007

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/

Comments

13 Feb 2009 - 11:06am
Mike Myles
2009

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

13 Feb 2009 - 5:11pm
Evan Meagher
2009

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

13 Feb 2009 - 9:25pm
Evan Meagher
2009

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

Syndicate content Get the feed