Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The article asserts:

"Aesthetically, a slightly taller can looks nicer. The Golden ratio is approx 1.6, so a can with a height of approx 1.6x it's diameter (3.2x the radius) would be very appealing."

However, it is a myth that the Golden Ratio is the most appealing ratio. Many things, from the Parthenon to paper sizes, don't have a golden ratio and that doesn't make them less attractive[1].

Also, the supermarket in my neighbourhood sells soup in a variety of containers (cans, tetrabriks, plastic bags) and if only the standard soup can would sell well, I wouldn't see the other packages.

[1] http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4325

"Perhaps the best known pseudoscientific claim about the golden ratio is that the Greek Parthenon, the famous columned temple atop the Acropolis in Athens, is designed around this ratio. Many are the amateurs who have superimposed golden rectangles all over images of the Parthenon, claiming to have found a match. But if you've ever studied such images, you've seen that it never quite fits, at least not any better than any other rectangle you might try. That's because there's no credible historical or documentary evidence that the Parthenon's designers, who worked more than a century before Euclid was even born, ever used the golden ratio in any way, or even knew of its existence."




i think most importantly, its stating that the golden ratio is appealing, which is somewhat unquestionable. that contrasts with what you said it said, which is that its the MOST appealing ratio. obviously there are many considerations that go into a soup cans dimensions, the author was only offering a LIST of other possible reasons other than volume/surface area efficiencies.

2ndly, theres a difference between not having golden ratios and not being based off the golden ratios.


There really is nothing particularly more appealing about the ratio 1:1.618.. (the golden ratio) than there is about ratios of 1:1.5, 1:1.666.. or even 1:1.333.., for that matter.

It has a bunch of interesting properties, but aesthetics is not one of them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: