Originally posted by Fontan 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.
- I like some of the K-01 design but find a few issues (regarding aesthetics and ergonomics) annoying.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan ...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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan Are there products, which meets every criteria that you mentioned, that have not been successful in the market?
I'm sure there are.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan Were the principles derived out of successful designs, or were they purely out of intellectual discipline?
Not sure why it matters to you.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan ...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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.
Originally posted by Fontan 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.