Interesante artículo sobre diseño que se remonta hasta los orígenes del término para hacernos ver lo errado de algunas tendencias dentro de esta (milenaria) centenaria práctica.
Tacho milenaria para destacar lo que siempre he dicho. Los diseños son máquinas visuales -propias de una era industrial-, a diferencia de las obras de arte tienen una razón de ser bastante definida (y explotable). La razón no es lo que la mayoría de la gente ignorante piensa: hacer que algo se vea “bonito” per sé, sino hacer que algo cumpla una función -generalmente comunicativa en el aspecto gráfico, y mas ampliamente, de experiencia de uso en otros ámbitos (industrial, de interfaces, arquitectónico, etc).
Design is not the goal, by
There is a well-known saying by Benjamin Franklin that states, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” If we take that lens to interaction design, we could say: In design nothing can be said to be certain, except eye candy and following new trends. The screens are changing, but the approach, sadly enough, is not.
Designers have penchant for all things with textures, embellishments, 3-D characteristics, as well as over – emphasized and generated effects – this is where design is currently hovering. It is heavy on the visible layer of design and that is the intention. This approach is limiting because it places focus on getting attention for the design itself, rather than designing for purpose…
i_alcocer ████████ 