
Design - The Demise of ‘Form Follows Function’ - melvinram
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/arts/01iht-DESIGN1.html?_r=1
======
melvinram
The author doesn't understand form or function too well and it's remarkable at
how he equates moving towards more intuitive ways of doing things as the "The
Demise of Form follows Function." Weird part is that it's in the New York
Times.

------
shalmanese
To me, form follows function means no unnecessary ornamentation. This doesn't
mean NO ornamentation, one of the things persistently misunderstood by
engineers is that all ornamentation is frivolous. What it means is the ability
to carefully consider and justify each design decision that you make and to
not be mindless about your design.

I think the NY Times article had somewhat of a point. Sure, the original iPod
needed to have a wheel and a screen and be easily held in your hands but it
really could have looked like anything apart from that. The loosening of
constraints upon design is at both liberating and slightly terrifying for
those who believe in form follows function.

------
GHFigs
What many design critics such as the author are slow to realize is that the
interface is _part of_ the design, and it still follows the same principles,
just in a new context.

For example, the interface of the iPod Shuffle is meant to be operated without
looking, often while moving, hence the form has just one main button located
in a stable stable position operated by squeezing instead of pushing. Even the
process of syncing with a computer defaults to requiring no interaction beyond
plugging it in.

~~~
marcusbooster
I'm sure the author understands that, but the point is that you have to know
what you are doing before you operate it. Give any schmuck a Sony Walkman and
a Fresh Prince cassette and they can get it playing in just a moment (if
less). These are the challenges of creating more functionality in smaller
devices.

