3 ms·

"An apple UI/UX guy" Cthulhu_ was likely understating on purpose, but this "Apple UI/UX guy" is Don Norman.

• radiorental 11y ago
  With all due respect to Don (and I do have a lot of respect, he built the foundation upon which my career rests). He misses the larger picture. I'll simply point at Apple's market cap as to why Apple can afford to get away with form over function.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • rfrey 11y ago
    Absolutely, I didn't mean to issue an appeal to authority. I just thought there might be people who'd be interested in Don Norman's take, who wouldn't otherwise click through to Yet Another Apple Critique.
• treerock 11y ago
  It's been years since I read Design of Everyday Things, but the lingering idea I've taken away is that beautiful products also work well. i.e. beauty and functionality are linked. Doesn't seem to match up with his statement "the fonts are pleasant to the eye, but difficult to read." Especially for something like a font, where the aesthetic and the utility are so difficult to separate.
  • TuringTest 11y ago
    "Beautiful products work well" means that beauty adds a plus to usage, not that it's the only factor. An ugly but functional device will work worse than an equivalent device which is also pretty and fun. But if the pretty device has dreadful usability, it won't work well no matter how pretty you find it. As for fonts, the prettiest and ornate ones are often the prettiest, yet more difficult to parse. https://www.google.com/search?q=fancy+font https://www.google.com/search?q=fancy+font