Ken,
> There are many cases in which solutions to problems may be
> attractive, expressive, and appealing, yet quite wrong
> because the designers involved are finding and solving the
> wrong problem.
My comments about your graphic design example were cautionary of the opposite phenomenon, one that tends to make many working designers wary of design researchers and design research: the tendency to devalue designed object being attractive, expressive, and appealing. I assume we agree that, as a general rule, designed objects should and can be both aesthetic and practical but too many of those who request a more rational approach to design exhibit a mindset that is suspicious of and hostile to aesthetic experience. The admission that the aesthetic function is (and should be) primary in much design is often resisted.
A few years ago I was involved in a listserv discussion (I believe that you were, also) where a prominent web guru complained about websites where information was not organized well. One example he gave was the website for a prominent brand of vodka. He failed to explain what important information about colorless, tasteless alcohol he was unable to find. My point is not that he made a poor choice of example but that his distaste for the playful and aesthetic was apparently reflexive.
Again, the red-on-blue type you described was probably as you say but merely stating that a designer made low contrast color decision for type isn't a case that heeding evidence would have saved the day. I also doubt that research evidence was needed; legibility and readability problems can best be uncovered by looking and reading.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839
[log in to unmask]
|