[Closed] "Good" design

BT logos aside, I'm not arguing for the merits of one design over another. (And I'm not quite sure how people can claim to be passionate about a corporate logo, except maybe [url= http://www.b3ta.com/features/phalliclogoawards/ ]these[/url]) I'm not sure that I'd like a biro more than a Parker, or a La-Z-Boy more than an Eames (and the La-Z-Boy probably costs more).

Just wondering why there is such snobbery regarding "design" when slightly more bulbous, lumpy or undistinguished things do the job just fine and don't affront the eye of your average chap(ette). Not to mention the fact that you can find beauty in something that might be viewed as ugly, industrial or ridiculous by other people.

trangia

The world is full of ugly ill-considered rubbish. The snobbery is just because some people CARE. It's not about elitism either, cheap products need to well designed because they often effect more people's lives. For example, one more ugly Porsche 4x4 effects less people than if Ford's next entry level car turned out to be gopping yet still got bought in high numbers because of economic sense.

Yes, the Spitfire may have been used well into the jet age, but as a warplane the hurricane was better as it was cheaper, easier to repair and shot down many more enemy planes.
[url= http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1941.html ]Contrary to popular belief, it was the Hurricane, not the Spitfire that saved Britain during the dark days of 1940. The turn-around time (re-arm, refuel etc.) for the Spitfire was 26 minutes. That of the Hurricane, only 9 minutes from down to up again. During the Battle of Britain the time spent on the ground was crucial and as one fitter/mechanic of No. 145 Squadron quipped: "If we had nothing but Spits we would have lost the fight in 1940." The Spitfire was an all metal fighter, slightly faster, had a faster rate of climb and had a higher ceiling, while the Hurricane had a fabric covered fuselage, was quicker to repair and withstood more punishment. With the for and against of both fighters they came out about even. The majority of German planes shot down during the four month period were destroyed by Hurricanes. For much of the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires went after the German BF 109s at the higher altitudes, while the Hurricanes attacked the bomber formations flying at lower altitudes. This cost the enemy a total of 551 pilots killed or taken prisoner. During the war a total of 14,231 Hurricanes and 20,334 Spitfires were produced.[/url]

Not to mention the fact that you can find beauty in something that might be viewed as ugly, industrial or ridiculous by other people.

Thats the point, its all subjective. What people perceive to be good design is often what marketing men have 'sold' to them and they 'buy' into it.

If a product performs consistantly to your requirements then it is well designed. Whether other people like it is another matter. Which raises the question, who do you(plural not directly!) buy a product for? Your own use or others approval?

cheap products need to well designed because they often effect more people's lives

I follow you there, but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own? If anything it seems like distinctive looking products are more expensive to buy than ordinary looking products made with the same materials to the same standards. 😐

What bothers me about design is that the big hitters seem to always feel they have to inovate and 'progress'. So lets say for example, something completely random, a messenger bag. The perfect engineer design was hit many many years ago when they were simple, square, flat, had a chest strap to keep them still and worked great. They might not have looked brilliant but they did their job really well and because they were made by the big companies, they generally lasted too. They cost bog all too because lets be honest, you can hardly ask for a lot for something that looks like something your grandad used.

So the big companies all hire shit-hot designers and get themselves a brand new look and because david beckham is seen once with a messenger bag that looks like three hat boxes stuck together and a leather strap, they can sell them for 200 quid a piece, everyone copies them and the only people making bags that actually work for a decent price is some poor arsed uncool company like ron hill who end up having to make them out of degraded flip flops to make a profit because they only sell three a year.

So an excellent design goes out the window all because things have to look good.

That's what bothers me.

That's because you're confusing design and fashion.
Which are very different things.

but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own?

And it was very successful in meeting it's brief IMO.

In fact, the orignal ran a very old and out of date engine/gearbox yet the very contemporary looks meant that the target audience didn't care. In fact, the target audience would probably never care about the mechanics.

It drives/handle swell because, usually, Ford are very good at designing cars that handle well.

[i]That's because you're confusing design and fashion.
Which are very different things. [/i]

Nah, I understand the difference, it's the companies doing that (or admittedly, the fashion concious masses) that have got confused. Otherwise they'd still be selling poor looking products that work well.

I know naff all about cars, but from that description the Ka sounds like your classic case of old wine in new bottles.

It drives/handle swell

The Ka?? We had one as a courtesy car while our Focus was in the garage.

It was ****in awful to drive. I put it on two wheels and almost rolled it going round a bend that I literally had never even thought about in the Focus.

Felt horribly unstable at anything over 50 as well.

Since driving it I've had a new found sympathy for the people that pootle down the dual carriageway at 50mph.

poor looking products that work well

It was ****in awful to drive.

I completlely disagree that it is an awful car to drive. And almost any review of it you will read will concur with my opinion of it.

😛

I like these

[img] [/img]

Hmmm interesting m_f, maybe our courtesy Ka was a bad example or something, but me and the missus both hated it and thought it was a total death trap.

Surely "good design" is something which looks good AND performs well*. Anything else if either good asthetics OR good engineering.
IHMO

(* by which I mean meets specifications)

I follow you there, but how does the fact that a Ka is funny looking make it any better to drive or own? If anything it seems like distinctive looking products are more expensive to buy than ordinary looking products made with the same materials to the same standards

Sure, market forces and fashion dictate price to a large extent - hence the fact that given two otherwise identical pieces of clothing one will sell out in a week, and the other will be heavily discounted in the sales, and all because this year red-on-white is fashionable, while white-on-red isn't...

But don't underestimate the cost of design: a Mac will [b]always[/b] cost more than an identically specced grey-box PC, because an important part of Apple's business model is aesthetics. Apple can afford to put out an over-priced / under-specced computer, as long as it looks good. And that requires money: focus groups, design meetings, prototypes, design time...

Ap, it wasn't "better" for all the reasons I've mentioned already. The Hurricane shot down more planes during the Battle of Britain because more squadrons were equipped with Hurricanes, it's as simple as that and most of the aircraft it shot down were slower and less maneuverable than it (Ju87, Bf110, He111, Do17/19 etc etc) The Hurricane was woefully outclassed by later models of the Bf109 and by the Fw190, and by as early as 1942 was withdrawn from fighter duties, and relegated to fighter bomber duties, and even then, replaced pretty quickly by the Typhoon, and Tempest.

For it's time it was pretty good, but it wasn't a better design that the Spitfire, sorry

You think the other companies don't do all that?
I can't see why apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer. They just have a fashionable style. I would love to know their profit margins!

I can't see why apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer

Designers need to be paid, too! While I didn't particuarly like my iPod nano, I freely admit that it was very pretty - brushed alu, those smooth rear and almost sharp front edges... and that costs money.

[i]Sometimes looking great and working great combine[/i]

= good design

[b]Good design is something you want to lick[/b]

[img] [/img]

name it aP, name it...

I can't see why Apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer.

I can. And I'm willing to pay for it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. In't choice a wonderful thing?

[b]Good design is something you want to lick[/b]

[img] ?t=1241136055[/img]

Droool.....

MTT - I'm thinking Mies van der Rohe, probably Berlin, Neue Nationalgalerie?

Now one for you, finished nearly 30 years after his death, and never used for its intended purpose but still an intensely evocative space. They were playing Xenakis when we went...
[img] [/img]

Is that inside a cooling tower or something?

[url= http://www.sitelecorbusier.com/en/ ][b]Gah![/b][/url] Infidel.

Up for riding the Surrey Hills Sunday or Monday?

Oh. 😳

Poss Sunday. Poss.

Good one, Le Corb - Saint-Pierre de Firminy(sp?) Church. Shame they didnt let him put a few more of his plans into action.

[img] [/img]

one for you;

[img] ?v=0[/img]

I feel like putting lots of quotes from Dieter Rams in here.

Instead, I'll just recommend this film: http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/

Oh, and divorcing aesthetics from the idea of "what something is like to use" is a false conceit. How usable we feel a product is does depend on how it looks/sounds/feels to quite a great degree.

As for the Ka: it's drivability and looks are inter-linked. Pushing each wheel out as far into the corners of a small car as possible, like the original mini, effects it's handling A LOT.

See, where Corbusier's designs failed, is that they din't consider real human use. Such brutalist concrete boxes are the scourge of many an inner city. That's the problem with many architects who design large housing buildings; they won't ever have to live there, and have little or no understanding of the needs of those who will.

[img] [/img]

divorcing aesthetics from the idea of "what something is like to use" is a false conceit.

Maybe true for some things. On the other hand there are loads of things out there that are so determined to differentiate themselves aesthetically that it actually makes them harder to use (e.g. James Dyson's Fisher Price vacuum cleaners). There are other things that fulfil their function perfectly and will never make the pages of a Sunday supplement.

Anyone up for starting a glossy magazine for useful items that make you go "meh"? 😉

I can't see why Apple stuff costs more to make than any other manufacturer.

I can. And I'm willing to pay for it. If you don't want to, you don't have to. In't choice a wonderful thing?

Good for you, hope you're happy in your iLife. A couple of decent designers doth not a fortune cost. The products are simple - cuboid with a few fillets. Not expensive to make. The sofware development - maybe. But the materials? No way. Like I said, it's just fashionable.

Those cross shaped buildings look absolutely awful. I bet half the people who live there (if they ever got built), committed suicide. They look very oppressive.

How usable we feel a product is does depend on how it looks/sounds/feels to quite a great degree.

You're right. Just to complicate things, this is covered in the study of ergonomics. How a product is used, its 'useability' if you like, often dictates how the product looks.

Wow. Some sense. Thank you JP.

People so often think that 'design' is 'dressing' an object rather then deciding how it works, how it's manufactured, how it's used, how it's disposed of, how it's transported, how it integrates with other objects, how it's stored, how long it lasts, how people connect to it...

Jon, while I agree with you to a great extent, what we now do instead (estates of boxes) divorces people from each other and from amenities and green space just as much.

Not sure if it fits in this thread , but i came across Balcombe viaduct the other day and thought it looked amazing:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I can't believe this thread has had so many posts from people claiming to know about design and no one has even noticed that the op's wire chair is a Harry Bertoia side chair not an Eames. 🙂

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

I went to the public library in Amsterdam it was a fantasic building, like a huge Ipod inside brilliant design, lighting etc, so many neat design ideas too many to list, definatley worth a visit.

Good for you, hope you're happy in your iLife. A couple of decent designers doth not a fortune cost. The products are simple - cuboid with a few fillets. Not expensive to make. The sofware development - maybe. But the materials? No way. Like I said, it's just fashionable.

I rarely understand this argument in the mac vs pc etc. You're right, it shouldnt be hard for other comapnies to make good looknig, simple products, yet none ever seem capable?! (please give some examples) So apple simply exploit the market...good looking, yet simple, technology. Cos lets face it, not many want to look like some uber geek with some plasticy P.O.S with red neons....

[img] [/img]

mtt - that's stumped me, I'm going to take a guess at Spain?
[img] ?v=0[/img]
br />
Villa Radieuse - pah! kids stuff. I can't see it ever really working, and rather think that he knew that as well.

How 'bout this.....

[img] http://cadc.auburn.edu/soa/rural-studio/images_from_andrew/glasschapel2.gi f" target="_blank">http://cadc.auburn.edu/soa/rural-studio/images_from_andrew/glasschapel2.gi f"/> [/img]

Harry Bertoia side chair not an Eames

You're absolutely right. 😳

Here's the Eames one. Looks way more comfy and practical. 😛

[img] [/img]