3 ms·
His first argument is a functional one: surely computers can give us a better way to manipulate audio than dragging around virtual patch cables. I totally agree
by toddmorey 16y ago
His first argument is a functional one: surely computers can give us a better way to manipulate audio than dragging around virtual patch cables. I totally agree with that.
However, then he tries to pivot the argument towards modernistic design sensibilities. Modern can be beautiful, but it can also be cold. And, like tactile interfaces, it's not immune from the eventual fatigue of seeing it everywhere.
In the end, the classic rule of form following function still applies. Make it work, then make it beautiful. As long as they don't impede function, I welcome the different looks and my occasional dose of nostalgia.
- rgbrgb 16y agoI think the classic rule of form following function doesn't have to do with doing one then the other. Rather, I believe it refers to the beauty of something which is built to be highly functional (e.g. higher mathematics, the piano, poetry(?)). In this case, aesthetics are functional.
- toddmorey 16y agoI really like that integrated viewpoint. I'd always thought it to mean that "form follows function" in order of priority (rather than chronologically in development). But I really like the idea that beauty is the byproduct of functionality. That's a new spin for me.