Dear Don,
Have no fears. There is no way that I plan to enter this thread. The problem with much of this thread is that so many people are using the same words in very different ways. I have religiously avoided staying out of it. If I were to post anything, it would be a quote from Ecclesiastes, not the Oxford English Dictionary.
I did write to Esra off list already to say that there are beautiful forklifts, tractors, and the like.... today's Volvo models and Toyota models are not what they were a few decades ago. Neither are forklifts.
Yours for low definition transmissions,
Ken
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 01:18:10 -0700, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Some people asked me to define what I meant by aesthetics, missing the
>entire point of my earlier comment that the attempt to make precise
>definitions is what got us into this mess. So I refuse to go down that
>route. If I go near that, soon Ken will present us with a 25 page long list
>of definitions from the Oxford Engish dictionary
>http://www.crown.com/en-us/forklifts.html
>On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Esra Bici <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From forklift design, I can pass to the second point. It is supposed that
>> in forklift design, there is no or little concern of aesthetics. I have
>> suspicions about this assumption. I think there is a probability that if we
>> conduct surveys with a) forklift users b)forklift producers and/or c)
>> forklift designers, we may end up with the result of prioritization of
>> aesthetics aspect, who knows? Or the aesthetics criteria and expectation
>> may not be at so low level as we guess. What I want to say is that there is
>> the aesthetics ingredient in every little "functional" product.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|