Other Software > Developer's Corner
Web Debate: Give Us Simplicity So We Can Ignore You
f0dder:
It's the style over substance crap that makes me cringe.-Stoic Joker (October 22, 2010, 07:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
+42
Stoic Joker:
The brain is a container where intelligence is stored. Simple. Complicating that would just be a philosophically pedantic exercises.
The hammer - arguably the first tool invented - has had many forms. But it has survived and is still in (vigorous) use today because of its function. They are still to this day very simple devices (chunk of metal on a stick). They are not particularly attractive ... However they are incredibly (functional...) handy for all sorts of things.
The function if a statue is it form, its purpose is to catch the eye and dazzle the mind. But, it doesn't really do anything, it's a statue.
Tools on the other hand, have to (function) perform a specific task in an efficient and (preferably) effortless manner. A shiny tool, that doesn't work...is scrap metal.
Armando:
The brain is a container where intelligence is stored. Simple. Complicating that would just be a philosophically pedantic exercises.
-Stoic Joker (October 22, 2010, 10:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
Really? A few neuroscientists I know don't find it that simple... nor would they agree with that metaphor. If you pick a few books on intelligence and consciousness (whether these are from a more materialistic point of view or not doesn't matter at all -- but it's probably better to balance point of views). Intelligence isn't a substance that's "contained". Not as current research explains it anyway. But you're allowed to find good science pedantic if you wish.
The function if a statue is it form, its purpose is to catch the eye and dazzle the mind. But, it doesn't really do anything, it's a statue.
--- End quote ---
Really ? that's a very assured statement. I don't want to sound harsh, but that's a pretty narrow view of what art does and its function(s)... Whether you approach it through sociology, anthropology, aesthetics or... Pure brain science. And, believe me, it's not about pedantry and philosophy. Not that I have anything against philosophy. If you want a few article/book titles on the matter... :)
In any case, my point was simply that, without any precise aim, discussing form vs function becomes quickly a circular debate. "Software" is a large field and there is a huge variety of software consumer with incredibly various needs. What form and function for whom ? When ? Sure a shiny tool that doesn't work might be scrap metal, but that's taking the opposite end of the spectrum as a justification. It's a given : nobody wants something that's either "useless" (a least for them) or "incomprehensible" (for them).
Stoic Joker:
The brain is a container where intelligence is stored. Simple. Complicating that would just be a philosophically pedantic exercises.
-Stoic Joker (October 22, 2010, 10:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
Really? A few neuroscientists I know don't find it that simple... nor would they agree with that metaphor. If you pick a few books on intelligence and consciousness (whether these are from a more materialistic point of view or not doesn't matter at all -- but it's probably better to balance point of views). Intelligence isn't a substance that's "contained". Not as current research explains it anyway. But you're allowed to find good science pedantic if you wish.-Armando (October 23, 2010, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
High school debating class 101, brandish a few experts and try to shame your opponent into silence. And/or whip them into the wall with semantical sideline. :) The brain is an organ, it can be located, examined, analyzed, and clearly defined. Intelligence, intellect, memories not so much. You can think on your feet, but you can't think with them...that's done with some other part of the body where ones life's experiences are kept.
The function if a statue is it form, its purpose is to catch the eye and dazzle the mind. But, it doesn't really do anything, it's a statue.
--- End quote ---
Really ? that's a very assured statement. I don't want to sound harsh, but that's a pretty narrow view of what art does and its function(s)... Whether you approach it through sociology, anthropology, aesthetics or... Pure brain science. And, believe me, it's not about pedantry and philosophy. Not that I have anything against philosophy. If you want a few article/book titles on the matter... :)-Armando (October 23, 2010, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
Granted art as a collective can define the mindset of a time period ... Which is serving a function. But that's a side effect of viewing all of it (Painting, sculpture, music, etc) collectively at once. Individual pieces sit there, are looked at, and if done well convey/express a feeling that the artist was trying to share. What does it do? It's pretty, catches the eye, and causes lively debate amongst folks that are sure they know what the artist was thinking/trying to express.
However when there is real work to be done. It is highly unlikely that a job Foreman looked through their tools and exclaimed "Shit! My statue is missing! Now we'll never get this job done..."
In any case, my point was simply that, without any precise aim, discussing form vs function becomes quickly a circular debate. "Software" is a large field and there is a huge variety of software consumer with incredibly various needs. What form and function for whom ? When ? Sure a shiny tool that doesn't work might be scrap metal, but that's taking the opposite end of the spectrum as a justification. It's a given : nobody wants something that's either "useless" (a least for them) or "incomprehensible" (for them).-Armando (October 23, 2010, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
Theory vs. Practice. In theory anything is possible, which is why academics tend to end up in circular discussions. Practice on the other hand, tends to rather clearly define the limitations that were being missed in conversation.
It's only circular if you have no context. Tools are devices that perform work that we want done. Sure, pretty gets it off the shelf and out of the stores into the garage. But if it don't work ... It's not going to stay in the garage...It's going out to the curb on its way to the dump.
wraith808:
In any case, my point was simply that, without any precise aim, discussing form vs function becomes quickly a circular debate. "Software" is a large field and there is a huge variety of software consumer with incredibly various needs. What form and function for whom ? When ? Sure a shiny tool that doesn't work might be scrap metal, but that's taking the opposite end of the spectrum as a justification. It's a given : nobody wants something that's either "useless" (a least for them) or "incomprehensible" (for them).
-Armando (October 23, 2010, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
Theory vs. Practice. In theory anything is possible, which is why academics tend to end up in circular discussions. Practice on the other hand, tends to rather clearly define the limitations that were being missed in conversation.
It's only circular if you have no context. Tools are devices that perform work that we want done. Sure, pretty gets it off the shelf and out of the stores into the garage. But if it don't work ... It's not going to stay in the garage...It's going out to the curb on its way to the dump.
-Stoic Joker (October 23, 2010, 09:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
The thing that gets me is that simplicity is in the eye of the beholder... umm... user. What's simple to me might not be simple to someone else. And what's simple to someone else might be a nightmare to me. Same with form and function. Even with user groups and usability testing and user acceptance- you're only dealing with a subset of users. That's why there can never be a hard target for these things. There's a reason that there's a saying that you can't please everyone all the time. And it's one of the reasons that I think that *most* reviews/critiques are flawed- they don't say this outright and the sheeple that read them in most cases take these reviews at face value without taking this into consideration, which can reduce someone's bottom line undeservedly, just because one person that happens to have influence doesn't like it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version