Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-07-2012, 01:24 PM   #91
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
the iPhone design does not violate any of Rams' design principles. It has all the hallmarks of a timeless design
FAIL - Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society
FAIL - Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
FAIL - Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Regardless, In general people don't buy 'good design', they buy what Aston K tells them to buy.

02-07-2012, 01:47 PM   #92
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote


Your reasoning isn't wrong, it's fundamentally flawed. Only Dieter Rams can determine if the design of the K-01 meets his criteria! That judgement also completely and entirely depends on expertise, and remains subjective.
Indeed.. it's been bugging me for a while but I've just been too lazy to mention it... but good thing someone else picked it up

Dieter Rams shared his points on what constitutes good design, but did not explain the individual metrics as to how to measure a product against these points.

The first point you claimed the K-01 failed against, aesthetics, is a good example. I previously argued that more than 43.92% of people rate the K-01 4 or 5 for styling and only 29.43% rating it 1 or 2 (with the remaining 26.65% sitting on the fence rating at 3).

Yet, the response given was However, currently, the K-01 only reaches 53.6% likeability overall. I'm saying that's not good enough. With the obvious emphasis on "I'm"... As such, I'm arguing that it is good enough based on the simple objective metric that there are more people that rate the styling higher than there are people who rate the style lower.

Unfortunately, though, this could go on forever since Dieter Ram's criteria is a subjective matter, and I'm trying to use objective imperial data to fit it - although, in this example, the objective imperial data was based on peoples subjective opinions... so I guess it counts!
02-07-2012, 02:21 PM   #93
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Perhaps it wasn't in such a nice way of doing it, but I set a trap, and predictably you got caught in it, just the way I thought you would.
Not sure what the purpose of the trap was. To catch me saying something sensible? You anticipated that I would say that the iPhone's design complies with Rams' principles and you agree that this is a reasonable viewpoint, so where is the trap?

I'll answer your questions below, but the whole thing isn't as complicated as you make it appear to be.
  1. I like some of the K-01 design but find a few issues (regarding aesthetics and ergonomics) annoying.
  2. Wondering whether that's just me or whether there may be less subjective ways to judge a camera's design, I looked at Rams' design principles.
  3. You may or may not subscribe to Rams' principles. I happen to like clean, no gimmicks, designs, so his school of thought appeals to me. Remember that we are talking about industrial design (with an emphasis on usability) rather than jewlery, fashion, etc.
  4. You may or not agree with my analysis of how the K-01's design fares against Rams' principles.
I felt that the above was a good way to set up a discussion about the K-01 that goes beyond "It's fugly" or "Me likey".

I probably should have added that my premise is that Pentax produces cameras for photography enthusiasts. Hence the application of Rams' rules makes sense. If we are talking about "Hello Kitty"-camera customers, the whole discussion gets a different drift (because now extraneous style becomes an asset rather than a detractor).

If it is Pentax's aim to tap into the "Hello Kitty" camera market, the K-01 may be just the deal. That's not what I hear Marc Newson saying, when he explains his design goals, though.

Regarding your questions:
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
For something like the iPhone, it would be awfully difficult to dispute its effectiveness as a design, because it has been so wildly successful.
I disagree. Success does not imply great design.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
...I dont know if Jonathan Ive had that in mind or not. Oh, it just came to me - I wonder what he thinks of the design of K-01 . . . What do you think?
Does the K-01 look like it could have been produced by Apple? To me it doesn't, but I have no idea what Ive thinks about the K-01 design.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
I wonder what your take would be on this camera if there was an Apple logo on it, instead of Pentax.
No change. Except that I would normally not comment on an Apple product because I don't care about Apple as a company.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
But it makes me wonder about the truthfulness of what your reply would be, because you seem to say "AFAIC," awfully a lot. It makes you look like creating escape routes in the event that you get stuck.
I'm using "AFAIC" to emphasise that this is my point of view, that I understand that others may have different viewpoints. My increased use of "AFAIC" was a response to some posters who accused me of attempting to claim the truth or tell them what is right and what is wrong.

Typically, "AFAIC" goes without saying in forum discussion when it comes to non-B&W assessments -- everyone is just contributing their viewpoint -- but it didn't seem to be clear to some so I thought I'd rather add it explicitly.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
If iPhone was for whatever reasons not entirely successful, would you still say that iPhone was well designed, or in line with your principle of your choice?
Of course.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
But then you would say that iPhone is successful as such because it meets every criteria, no?
No. Success and product merit are two different things. That doesn't mean, however, that product merit is irrelevant to success. It just isn't a guarantee. Also, to have success you have to hit a market and that can sometimes mean to offer a product that has less general merit than one that wouldn't be geared towards that specific market.

I was assessing the K-01's from a camera enthusiast point of view because that's where I want to see Pentax. From the point of a hipster, the K-01 is probably way better than a "boring" Rams design. For a water fun toy, I'd say it could go down the "toyish" and "gimmicky" road a bit further.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Are there products, which meets every criteria that you mentioned, that have not been successful in the market?
I'm sure there are.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Are there what is considered timeless designs that have stood the test of time that do not exactly meet Rams' criteria?
That depends on what you consider a "timeless design". If you are talking about successful products, I'm sure there are many which do not comply to Rams' rules but are/were nevertheless successful.

If you are considering "timeless" in the sense of "never becoming old-fashioned" I believe any gimmickry (something like the snorkel that doesn't have a function but tries to be different for the sake of being different and be "forward looking" while of course being the result of a current design style) does not have a chance of standing the test of time.

I think that the more futuristic a design aims to be, the quicker it dates. The more a designer tries to make a style statement, the higher the chances, the style will go out of fashion.

Again, we are talking about industrial design.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Were the principles derived out of successful designs, or were they purely out of intellectual discipline?
Not sure why it matters to you.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Where I am going with this is, just exactly how important are "design principles?" Does it really matter?
I think principles matter, because they give you a way to sanity-check what you have come up with. Principles are typically distilled from experience and it is a good idea to draw on prior experience when creating something new.

If your design draft violates a principle, you can either change the design or question the principle. Both can lead to good outcomes, but the principle was there a watchdog to make sure you know what you are doing.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Let's just say for the sake of your argument that yes they are "very" important. Then, what I wonder is, should creativity of a designer be restricted to the boundaries of guiding principles?
Of course. An industrial designer is a servant. Industrial design is not a platform to express one's individuality, allowing one's creativity to impede on the usability of a product.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
...I say this by looking at many of the designs of the smart phones. They all pretty much look the same. As a designer (not that I am one), I would hate it if the design principles are dictated by the force or the direction of the market, or worse yet, by someone else's intellectual exercise.
Before iPhone-type smart phones, they all looked different to what the iPhone looks like. Yet, the iPhone design (let's restrict the discussion to the hardware) is perfectly within the boundaries of Rams' principles, it even embodies them more than any previous design.

So, no, Rams' rules did not prevent anyone to come up with an iPhone-like design. Everyone was free to do it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
You cannot diagnose the effectiveness of product design as we diagnose malignancy, or cancer.
Measuring design quality is of course very hard, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it is not possible.

If you use sufficiently large sample groups, I'm sure you can empirically prove that some ISO button placements are better than others based on the number of good shots subjects in the experiment are able to deliver.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
But, as a product design, it is intriguing enough that it makes me want to put my hands on it, just to see how it feels.
Good, it was successful then in your case.

I'm arguing the same urge -- want to touch it -- could have been achieved with less mistakes and that it is a shame that such quality materials are used to create such a toyish look.

However, my line of argumentation could be wrong for you and exactly the features I'd get rid of are the ones that make you want to play with it.

Last edited by Class A; 02-07-2012 at 02:46 PM.
02-07-2012, 02:29 PM   #94
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
So it's primarily a fashion accessory, secondarily a photographic tool for Pentax users.
That's probably the main reason why there's such a love or hate it reaction to the design.
Fashion designers don't care if the outfit looks stupid. They don't care if it's uncomfortable. They do it because they solely thought it looked cool and they wanted to do something new. I'd love to design impractical stuff for girls to wear and not get slapped for doing it
FWIW, I'm into fashion photography too...and some of the outfits get the same reaction from me...i.e., "what is the designer thinking???". They're not meant to be understood...they're "fashion"

I would have loved to just sit in (just observe, not ask them if they thought it was fugly ) on the focus groups Pentax had for this, assuming they had any (doesn't seem like it from that interview where he said he didn't care about consumer feedback)...

02-07-2012, 02:30 PM   #95
Veteran Member
octavmandru's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: somewhere around
Posts: 615
I hate the blocky design on the K-01. Hate the new DA40 cheap looks.
Not even close to the elegance of K-5 or Iphone 4. No match to the 645D.
The Q had style in it. This is a three color brick.

There, I said it.

Last edited by octavmandru; 02-07-2012 at 02:38 PM.
02-07-2012, 02:46 PM - 2 Likes   #96
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3
Having taught at a Design school for 15 years now, and a world renowned one, I must say..... This discussion is amusing.

You don't set a mark if you don't stick out of the mass. Sometimes it works and it becomes a milestone, sometimes it does not. And sometimes it takes some time to become a milestone. Who could have told before that the half transparent Imacs became so popular? Or the VW beetle?

"Sticking to old rules is not what makes design advance"
02-07-2012, 02:48 PM   #97
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,877
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
......... The white and black ones barely register anything in most people's eyes.
good point...

Pete



credit: forum member frank

Last edited by Transit; 02-07-2012 at 04:18 PM.
02-07-2012, 03:01 PM   #98
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by turtleland Quote
You don't set a mark if you don't stick out of the mass.
This is important to know for a designer who wants to be able to have a single piece of furniture auctioned for close to a million dollars.

It is also important to know for a company that wants to get some press.

Sticking out the mass can be helpful to sell products and that can be a good thing, but it doesn't imply that what made you stick out was a good thing.

Being different for the sake of being sticking out, is wrong, AFAIC. Stick out by all means by doing something better than anyone has done it before. But to change something good into something less good because you have to "stick out" is bad (for the customer).

Many people in design and art have the problem that they need to stick out and by goodness the customer/public has to suffer for it.

QuoteOriginally posted by turtleland Quote
"Sticking to old rules is not what makes design advance"
  1. As a designer you may be interested in whether or not design advances. As a customer I am not. I'm interested in usability.
  2. I'm particularly against design advancing if it means that a product becomes less usable or sells less.
  3. You use "old" with a negative connotation. Is something that stood the test of time "old" or is it rather "useful"?


02-07-2012, 03:04 PM   #99
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Transit Quote
good point...
This image looks good because
  • elegant lens design dominates, and
  • the K-01 deficiencies are masked.
02-07-2012, 03:15 PM   #100
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
It's just as well we're not discussing 'Art' here or there'd be an endless parade of statements like "my 5yo kid could do better than that".
02-07-2012, 03:17 PM   #101
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,877
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
This image looks good because
  • elegant lens design dominates, and
    ...........
what ? those old silver things ?
02-07-2012, 03:17 PM   #102
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Did you see Marc Newson's Ford concept car? I showed it to my friend (we're both into cars) and he's like "close that shit" after about 2 seconds

I'd never buy a camera because it looks good, but I wouldn't but one if it looks bad. The K-01 looks OK if you ask me- nowhere near as disastrous as that car!
The only thing wrong with that car design is your expectations.
02-07-2012, 03:19 PM   #103
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,877
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
.....
Many people in design and art have the problem that they need to stick out and by goodness the customer/public has to suffer for it.
True, my first architect had that issue, I fired him.
02-07-2012, 03:27 PM   #104
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
Indeed.. it's been bugging me for a while but I've just been too lazy to mention it... but good thing someone else picked it up
If it were really true that "Only Dieter Rams can determine if the design of the K-01 meets his criteria!" they be pretty crappy criteria and not worth publishing.

Of course the criteria leave room for debate but to claim that only the person who came up with them can evaluate a design against them is nonsense.

QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
Dieter Rams shared his points on what constitutes good design, but did not explain the individual metrics as to how to measure a product against these points.
But we can try to measure a product against the criteria. You may disagree with someone's assessment and that's were a useful discussion can start.

QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
As such, I'm arguing that it is good enough based on the simple objective metric that there are more people that rate the styling higher than there are people who rate the style lower.
Fine. We can now debate whether a camera's design has succeeded if it just about crosses the "mediocre" mark. If this were my job, I'd do some research on how other cameras fare in such polls, how much the forum population may have skewed the results, etc. This would lift a judgement regarding aesthetics beyond a subjective evaluation.

Hence, your argument is not a reason to ascertain that any attempt to subject the K-01 design to some design criteria is a futile endeavour.
02-07-2012, 03:28 PM   #105
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
The different approach to design taken by the K7/K5 designers: link

Did Toshihiro Hamamura pass the 'design principles' test?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, design, k-01, k01, marc, mirrorless, on/off, pentax, pentax k-01, products, rams
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-01 Officially Announced - *START HERE* + Interview with Marc Newson Adam Pentax News and Rumors 48 05-11-2012 05:29 PM
Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas introduces pentax k-01 designed by Marc Newson Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 0 02-02-2012 05:10 AM
FA Limited lens series won the 2010 Good Design Long Life Design Award Patriot Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 11-29-2010 06:16 AM
What happens if SDM fails? Hannican Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 08-19-2010 04:13 AM
Hitlers SDM Fails knumbnutz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-11-2010 08:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top