“But what are the objective criteria that make iOS's design truly better?” There is no such creature as objectivity in design. It is all privileged vantage. W

“But what are the objective criteria that make iOS's design truly better?” There is no such creature as objectivity in design. It is all privileged vantage. When I was a young wee art schooler, we had a professor who made this abundantly clear by reframing the question of “What is good art?” The reframing of art as language. When we ask the question “What is good art?” or “What is good design?” we bury the privilege. Were we to ask “What is good language?” we can begin to see how displaced the very question is. Even then, it is likely our answers would be much more cautious, nuanced, and contextual. Most of Norman's and Buxton's writing on the subject tends to highlight the contextuality of design[1]. This echoes the much more complex notions surrounding its cultural role, much like language. And very much unlike the mucousy puddle in the original article... [1] http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-visualisations-inuit-wood-maps/ http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-vis... http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html