5 ms·

Fifteen Fundamental Properties (2022)

64 points by camillovisini 2y ago

xutopia 2y ago
This feels like astrology of design. It is just me?
- detourdog 2y ago
  Well one could consider them self evident and obvious. The dialog is quite clear if one is fluent in design language. The point is trying to organize the thinking process to make sure all edge cases are explored. These edge case can be discussed in a context of the scale under consideration.
- Phiwise_ 2y ago
  I guess you haven't read any of TNoO?
  - detourdog 2y ago
    I couldn't answer since I have no idea what you are talking about.
    - Phiwise_ 2y ago
      "The Nature of Order" is the four-volume book Christopher Alexander introduced his analysis tool of the fifteen fundamental properties of order in. It's named in the first paragraph of this blog post.
      - detourdog 2y ago
        Right but the question I was responding to was if the whole thing was Design Astrology. This question alone is open to interpretation let alone The fifteen fundamental properties which is the topic of the blog post. I tried to answer the question the best I could best on my design education which does include Christopher Alexander. I answered based on the context of the question and the level of that the questioner seemed to approach the topic. I would think a well reasoned critique of my answer would include my errors and how they misled the questioner. I still think my answer is fine despite not having read the original 4 volume source of the 15 properties that the blog post referenced. If you would like to explain how this language is not Design Astrology I'm sure it would be more interesting than harping on other answers. I see that you like long answers and that is fine. Some people like short answers that get to the point. I guess I was trying to keep the conversation at the same scale:)
abeppu 2y ago
> Objects and buildings feature a hierarchy of centers – distinctive features which attract the spectator's eye. I think it's weird to consider the people interacting with buildings as "spectators". Presumably a building serves purposes other than being seen. Though these were posed by an architect, "residents", "occupants", "users" etc are never mentioned -- only "spectators".
- alekee 2y ago
  Indeed, it seems the author chose to separate behavior of the "user/creator" from aesthetic for the purpose of this argument. Which could be perhaps due to the author trying to separate their own ego from these sort of trueisms that they perceive to be inherent constructs that all structures/objects contain. However, it seems we can see their ego still in their use of the word "spectator", which I would argue is how the author has placed themselves. Where I think they were going with this I'll explain in an example. If you take an urban city, the centers are the buildings, the shops, businesses, etc, where meaning and behavior has been centered and distributed across a grid of streets. The streets would represent the lowest hierarchy, as on the streets its anarchy of meaning wherein the occupants of the street bear little collective purpose. But once you enter a store, suddenly there is a unified purpose seen in the design of the store and the behavior of it's occupants that mutually reinforce each other. Such that these hierarchies are easily distinguishable(their attraction). To be attracted to something one must first define the boundaries of the object, one is attracted to a collection of behaviors or manifestations of nature that they construct as an object.
- detourdog 2y ago
  Spector in the sense that they perceive in and move through the space. They don’t create or manipulate the space at the scale under consideration. That is my interpertation.
- mcswell 2y ago
  I get what you're saying, and it kind of strikes me that way too. But: many modern homes (mine included) have fake shutters on each side of the windows. Why? I guess it's just for looks, as very very few houses have functional shutters.
tptacek 2y ago
This is derived from Christopher Alexander, who people on HN might be more aware of as the (distant) intellectual progenitor of the pattern language movement (of which the "Gang of Four" Design Patterns are the most familiar incarnation) --- but he himself is an architect; I assume "A Pattern Language" isn't his most important book in his own field, but it's a lot of fun to flip through, and I'm glad I have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
- andoando 2y ago
  When I hear patterns I think of them literally, as a sequence of repeating abstract things. Is his stuff at all related?
  - classified 2y ago
    Let me google that for you... https://patternlanguage.cc/ https://patternlanguage.cc/
rkallos 2y ago
These properties are explained in great detail in volume 1 of Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order. Reading about these with accompanying images of spaces or objects demonstrating the presence or absence of these properties is what made it stick for me.
digging 2y ago
Maybe I'm just too brutish to understand, but this comes across as absurd to me. Willing to be corrected. Boundaries as a fundamental property makes sense. Literally all things have boundaries (or, if you prefer, no things have boundaries and we can design the perception of boundaries). Thick boundaries is an approach to utilizing the property of boundaries. Thin boundaries exist; they're acknowledged (as "ineffective") in the selfsame paragraph. So Thick Boundaries is not a fundamental property. (Separately, I disagree that thin boundaries are categorically ineffective, unless we're defining thinness in a tautological way - ie. "a boundary so thin that a human can't ordinarily perceive it". But I'm no legendary designer.) Engineers get a lot of flack for not having the skills to explain their work in non-technical ways, but I think designers are the worst about it. Concepts will be so abstracted as to be inscrutable, such that a simple statement of a fundamental property comes across as an obviously wrong and foolish statement to an outsider. This abstraction is not a bad thing in and of itself, but you'd think designers of all professions would be better about inclusive presentation - that is, about making their work understood. (The introductory paragraph of TFA is actually an unusually clear and useful framing to the content - often such articles don't even both with a lay introduction; but the content, as I stated above, is close to nonsense to me.)

64 points by camillovisini 2y ago

xutopia 2y ago

This feels like astrology of design. It is just me?

detourdog 2y ago
Well one could consider them self evident and obvious. The dialog is quite clear if one is fluent in design language. The point is trying to organize the thinking process to make sure all edge cases are explored. These edge case can be discussed in a context of the scale under consideration.
Phiwise_ 2y ago
I guess you haven't read any of TNoO?
- detourdog 2y ago
  I couldn't answer since I have no idea what you are talking about.
  - Phiwise_ 2y ago
    "The Nature of Order" is the four-volume book Christopher Alexander introduced his analysis tool of the fifteen fundamental properties of order in. It's named in the first paragraph of this blog post.
    - detourdog 2y ago
      Right but the question I was responding to was if the whole thing was Design Astrology. This question alone is open to interpretation let alone The fifteen fundamental properties which is the topic of the blog post. I tried to answer the question the best I could best on my design education which does include Christopher Alexander. I answered based on the context of the question and the level of that the questioner seemed to approach the topic. I would think a well reasoned critique of my answer would include my errors and how they misled the questioner. I still think my answer is fine despite not having read the original 4 volume source of the 15 properties that the blog post referenced. If you would like to explain how this language is not Design Astrology I'm sure it would be more interesting than harping on other answers. I see that you like long answers and that is fine. Some people like short answers that get to the point. I guess I was trying to keep the conversation at the same scale:)

abeppu 2y ago

> Objects and buildings feature a hierarchy of centers – distinctive features which attract the spectator's eye. I think it's weird to consider the people interacting with buildings as "spectators". Presumably a building serves purposes other than being seen. Though these were posed by an architect, "residents", "occupants", "users" etc are never mentioned -- only "spectators".

alekee 2y ago
Indeed, it seems the author chose to separate behavior of the "user/creator" from aesthetic for the purpose of this argument. Which could be perhaps due to the author trying to separate their own ego from these sort of trueisms that they perceive to be inherent constructs that all structures/objects contain. However, it seems we can see their ego still in their use of the word "spectator", which I would argue is how the author has placed themselves. Where I think they were going with this I'll explain in an example. If you take an urban city, the centers are the buildings, the shops, businesses, etc, where meaning and behavior has been centered and distributed across a grid of streets. The streets would represent the lowest hierarchy, as on the streets its anarchy of meaning wherein the occupants of the street bear little collective purpose. But once you enter a store, suddenly there is a unified purpose seen in the design of the store and the behavior of it's occupants that mutually reinforce each other. Such that these hierarchies are easily distinguishable(their attraction). To be attracted to something one must first define the boundaries of the object, one is attracted to a collection of behaviors or manifestations of nature that they construct as an object.
detourdog 2y ago
Spector in the sense that they perceive in and move through the space. They don’t create or manipulate the space at the scale under consideration. That is my interpertation.
mcswell 2y ago
I get what you're saying, and it kind of strikes me that way too. But: many modern homes (mine included) have fake shutters on each side of the windows. Why? I guess it's just for looks, as very very few houses have functional shutters.

tptacek 2y ago

This is derived from Christopher Alexander, who people on HN might be more aware of as the (distant) intellectual progenitor of the pattern language movement (of which the "Gang of Four" Design Patterns are the most familiar incarnation) --- but he himself is an architect; I assume "A Pattern Language" isn't his most important book in his own field, but it's a lot of fun to flip through, and I'm glad I have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander

andoando 2y ago
When I hear patterns I think of them literally, as a sequence of repeating abstract things. Is his stuff at all related?
- classified 2y ago
  Let me google that for you... https://patternlanguage.cc/ https://patternlanguage.cc/

rkallos 2y ago

These properties are explained in great detail in volume 1 of Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order. Reading about these with accompanying images of spaces or objects demonstrating the presence or absence of these properties is what made it stick for me.

digging 2y ago

Maybe I'm just too brutish to understand, but this comes across as absurd to me. Willing to be corrected. Boundaries as a fundamental property makes sense. Literally all things have boundaries (or, if you prefer, no things have boundaries and we can design the perception of boundaries). Thick boundaries is an approach to utilizing the property of boundaries. Thin boundaries exist; they're acknowledged (as "ineffective") in the selfsame paragraph. So Thick Boundaries is not a fundamental property. (Separately, I disagree that thin boundaries are categorically ineffective, unless we're defining thinness in a tautological way - ie. "a boundary so thin that a human can't ordinarily perceive it". But I'm no legendary designer.) Engineers get a lot of flack for not having the skills to explain their work in non-technical ways, but I think designers are the worst about it. Concepts will be so abstracted as to be inscrutable, such that a simple statement of a fundamental property comes across as an obviously wrong and foolish statement to an outsider. This abstraction is not a bad thing in and of itself, but you'd think designers of all professions would be better about inclusive presentation - that is, about making their work understood. (The introductory paragraph of TFA is actually an unusually clear and useful framing to the content - often such articles don't even both with a lay introduction; but the content, as I stated above, is close to nonsense to me.)