5 ms·

So this has been down voted twice, but with no further comments. I find the statement to be a rather interesting piece of logical jujitsu that I use often - if

• CamperBob2 8y ago
  I didn't downvote or upvote, but one objection might be that design implies a union of intention and ability. Intention has two prerequisites of its own, desire ("I want this particular outcome") and foresight ("Doing X will lead to this outcome.") Few people desire to fail at their designs, but shortcomings in foresight, ability, or both may make those designs imperfect, leading to overall failure.
  • bopbop 8y ago
    I think we're arguing the same thing - The designers intention was to design a system that does x In reality, due to foresight, ability, etc, they have designed a system that does y Because their system sits inside other systems, it is transformed (think of your 1.0 to your 1.1 to your 2.2 to your html5). External design influences sand off and transform what they designed (i.e. google, the unwilling ad company) Every system is perfectly achieving what it is designed to do by all of these designers. Reverse engineer it's outputs and you will understand it - although you will have to figure out all of its designers. In a capitalist society, however, finding the biggest designer is easy - Follow the money. It's a bit of a truism, but I still find it to be a very useful tool. We're not talking about the code of Facebook here, after all, were talking about the social output.