[Wolves] E-mail

[sparkes]

The artist formally known as Peter Cannon was heard to say...
> On Thursday 24 Jun 2004 13:03, sparkes wrote:
>
>> You don't buy an ornament for what it does you buy it for what it is
>
> You bloody Philistine
> an ornament fills you with euphoric beauty it enhances your surroundings
> macking a mud hut into a palace.
>

But its not purchased as a functional item it's environment enhancing
beauty is based on it's form not the fact it won't break if you knock it
off while dusting, or that it will hold the bills on the mantlepiece ;-)

>> this is why the better
>> craftsmen will smooth off the bottom, pride in the form that is created.
>> A figure with a rough bottom is just as useful as one with a smooth
>> bottom
>> it's just less pleasing to you when apreciated from certain angles, it
>> doesn't stop being a valid expression of someones taste in interior
>> design
>> but a bad interface does stop good software from working where a bad
>> piece
>> of software can not be fixed by polishing the bottom ;-)
>
> Now you see this is the crux of your problem you are happy to forgoe
> quality
> in favour of functionality,

nope, I am not happy to forgoe quality.  Quality is a third issue. 
Something can not be said to have quality if it does not function to the
best of it's ability.  A polished turd is still a turd ;-) If BMW's went
from a to b as quickly as every other car but fell apart after 10000 miles
nobody would buy them however good they looked (ok not a good example as
lancia and other italian makers tried this in the 70's)

You could make a toothbrush out of solid platinum and have to created by
the worlds greatest artisans but if you can't brush your teeth with it all
that 'quality' has gone to waste.  It's form and the techniques and
technology do not give the platinum toothbrush it's quality.  Quality can
not be made or created it is purcived by the user of the product.  All the
'quality' in the world can not make up for the fact a 2 quid toothbrush
would keep your teeth cleaner and be more usable doing it ;-)

> there is an argument for that train of thought
> however only you (and one day hopefully I) can stand by that ethos that is
> because you have the knowledge and capability to use the imaginary
> application regardless of the graphical front end but that stand point is
> not
> defendable when placed in the context of world wide exposure this is
> because
> there is and always will be a higher proportion of Non experts hence a
> good
> usable front end is a pre requisite for most apps.

Now you are turning things around again.  I am argueing FOR usability. 
Usability is a scientific princple of how usable an item is.  The original
arguement was usable interfaces are more important that beautiful ones and
I stand by that.  I enjoy the fact that usable interfaces are normally the
ones that it is easy to make sexy with a little eyecandy but it takes a
hell of a lot of expensive engineering to make a sexy interface usable if
that was not a concern during development.

I am posting this message via squirrelmail one of the applications that
started off this whole debate.  It is ugly as sin and there are hundreds
of potential improvements that could be made but they are all expensive in
terms of the time it needs and it might limit the number of browsers that
could use the 'improved' interface.  But, dispite it's drawbacks, it has a
hell of a lot of functionality and is generally very usable.  Usable but
not beautiful.  And not the two are not mutually exclusive so nobody has
to pack their jobs in just yet ;-)
>

sparkes