You’re as charming as Katy seems to have reckoned. (Can I call her that, boss?)

Look, you don’t, use commas, well, or, at all, from what I can tell.

So, eh, your grammar is as unflexible, as is your ability to read.

CD Evans

Seriously, I don’t make a habit of insulting commenters, but you’re about as coherent as the mad raving junkies in my hood.

BTW,
I wasn’t arguing with Kathy’s point so much as with her example of the abysmal level of intelligence found in design discourse. And I think you have provided us with an even better example. Thank you.

I’m pretty shocked you can’t see the ugliness of american design.

Some things are good, but overall, as Kathy say’s there’s no real cultural representation, except that of money making. And, funny enough, look what you ended up talking about!

(The guitar is spanish, not american, get it straight. It’s for a dance, flamenco, Andalucia, ahem, and, it’s the corruption of the american media which has kept rock going, it certainly isn’t charming anymore.)

But, I digress, as a canadian, having spent tons of time in the states, and a european… for pete’s sake.. it’s not a competition! (It’s not even a contest.)

I was actually moderated, and so I’ve left the interaction design list, which I helped start by the way, for making some of the same comments that Kathy made. Money is not culture, and culture is at the core of design.

Most people in europe understand design. It’s NOT a result of the industrial revolution, it’s timeless, it’s creating your own artifacts, plain and simple. The last hundred years are a blip on the european concept of design. Business is new school, Design is old school.

It’s not just architecture, it’s those fork holders in the window displays. It’s everything that europeans understand about themselves, and want to represent in a piece of work. It’s an art. A fine art in fact. And, in most countries it’s not traditionally tied to progress, class or any other social notion in particular, the design can represent anything. Anything. Why profit driven design is so poor is beyond me, but I’d think maybe too many MBAs.

Why are Americans hot and bothered by a bit of critisism on the arts culture which they dreadfully ignore. It’s not your fault. I asked the irish lady in the pub to be sure, and she said, ‘yeah, sorry, they are very sensitive.’

So, take it grain of salt. If you want to define american design, you need to let the people actually do it. Nowadays, with the really amazingly stupid industrial focus, culture isn’t nearly as represented as it was when it was all done by hand.

Doing it just to compete is like cutting your culture in half. The competition lives there too.

CD Evans

And here\’s a nice quote from Decca records around 1962 about the Beattles–as a analogy to Kathy\’s trouble with MySpace aesthetics:

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”

Ok, I feel a bit better now.

Design consistency may improve usability in most cases but I was referring solely to usability of money where each note needs to be differentiable. From my time living in US, I have many anecdotal examples of nationals and non-nationals passing over the wrong denomination. It happens.

No Kathy’s ideas are not de facto superior, I was merely making the point that you had implied that hers were wrong and I was telling you that in my opinion you had not proven so in at least three of the four examples.

I suppose I was being a bit literal when I said blogs are peer-reviewed journals. They satisfy the definition of a ‘journal’ and they are reviewed by peers. I never said anything about academic. But since you and Kathy have, they are like academic peer-reviewed journals in that they often raise important issues for disciplinary communities to debate in public. The fact that blogs are less formal, and the debate exchanges occur more rapidly and can include more people doesn’t really change things.

Those pesky typos. A shameful laziness I’ve acquired from an over reliance on Word’s spell check. Thank you for passive-aggressively point it out.

I disagreed that graffiti in Western Europe is better aesthetically and stylistically—the definitions of design and evaluative criteria Kathy established up front for her original post. While I really like the graffiti in Barcelona it is absolutely not for aesthetic or stylistic reasons.

Anyway, this is all fairly specious as beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Yes, thank you, exactly my point regarding Kathy’s whole post, and why I said it was interesting in a getting-to-know-you sort of way, but not meaningful otherwise. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. Great.

I cannot and did not argue with architecture being older outside the US. As a matter of fact, I said exactly that. But the point is a red herring. Why? Well, so what the architecture outside the US is older? Unless the connection between architectural age and design culture is made (which I suspect it can be made), the fact that something is older than something else is meaningless. It\’s a kind of Monte Python reasoning (if she weighs as much as a duck she must be a witch!) While Kathy is very likely right, she doesn’t specify how that is meaningful in terms of her larger question (Does the US suck at design?–remember).

You argue that semiotics are more important then aesthetics when it comes to money – this may be so, but that wasn’t the argument being made

I argued about the semiotics of the aesthetics (what it means as opposed to my own taste). If meaning isn\’t the argument then we’re just talking about what Kathy likes or doesn’t and that’s a waste of bandwidth. Perhaps I gave her post more credit than it deserved.

…is a semiotic issue by dint of it being a move against counterfeiting.

How is semiotics (the study of signs, meaning and interpretation of meaning) related to counterfeiting? Do the socially constructed meanings of the Statue of Liberty’s torch on the $10 bill somehow hinder counterfeiting? How does a symbol’s meaning hinder counterfeiting?

…counterfeiting which is the greatest threat to the fiduciary stability of any legal tender

Well that is highly debatable. The damage to currency value caused by a nation’s central bank printing too much of the stuff strikes me as a much greater threat. But I’m no economist.

Moreover you are just wrong when it comes to the usability issue – recognition of the denomination of any US note takes longer because of the similarity of design and single size of notes and by definition that makes their usability less convenient.

Can you point to any evidence that supports a) denomination recognition of US dollars takes longer (longer than what you don’t say), b) this delay is consistent across a significant portion of the life-time of use, c) this delay cause real experiential or financial problems for people or companies. Or is this “just a blog post” and needn’t be trifled with things like supporting claims?

any US note takes longer because of the similarity of design and single size of notes and by definition that makes their usability less convenient.

Similarity by definition make usability less convenient? On the contrary design consistency is a long established design principle that specifically improves usability. The denominations are printed large and legible, four times in each of the four corners on the front face of each bill. It seems inconceivable that someone with vision could possibly miss the denominations, or forget where they are. I may be wrong the the US dollars are fine usability-wise, but where is the evidence?

…you did make the error of asserting that there were other ideas (by implication your own) that were more valid than Kathy’s

God forbid that one should suggest there are more valid opinions than Kathy’s! Besides that’s not what I said. I said that there were other equally valid opinions that contradict hers. I added my opinion that I thought some would likely be more valid (you know, actually supported by evidence or theory, or something). So how is this in error? Are you suggesting that stuff that contradicts Kathy is inherently invalid? Or that evidential or theoretical support in no way validates an opinion? Dude, please tell me I misunderstand you here.

If I were being bitchy, I could suggest that three typos in your first paragraph connote a lack of rigour that might lead me to doubt you “right off the bat” and I could criticise your four point critique thus:

You disagree that Western Europe has good graffiti yet you loved (your verb) the graffiti of Barcelona which is definitely in Western Europe. You may not have been impressed by the aesthetics (of the limited amount you admit to having seen) but your praise still suggests to me that you thought it to be good.

You disagree that Barcelona has gorgeous women – Kathy’s use of the word hot conveyed to regular readers that this was a light-hearted remark, but even taken at face value it is undeniable that there are many gorgeous women in Barcelona. Having myself lived in London, New York and Los Angeles I would argue that genetic selection (i.e. the lure of stardom) has given LA the edge in gorgeousness. Anyway, this is all fairly specious as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is I think applicable here since we’re talking of human attraction and while I would concur with you re “fake plastic models”, many people find that look to be gorgeous.

You can’t argue with the Architecture is Older Outside the US statement, but then refuse to explain your red herring remark. I am not a designer but I don’t see that living in a culture of centuries of different aesthetics is a de facto stimulus for creativity. Equally it doesn’t strike me immediately that it isn’t. You may be right, but you didn’t pitch so I don’t know how the umpire would call in this situation.

You argue that semiotics are more important then aesthetics when it comes to money – this may be so, but that wasn’t the argument being made. I’m no great fan of the Swiss notes and the designs that will replace them http://www.snb.ch/d/banknoten/neue_noten/gestalter/krebs.html are even worse to my eye, but in any case the increased colourisation (is that a word?) of notes around the world IS a semiotic issue by dint of it being a move against counterfeiting which is the greatest threat to the fiduciary stability of any legal tender. Moreover you are just wrong when it comes to the usability issue – recognition of the denomination of any US note takes longer because of the similarity of design and single size of notes and by definition that makes their usability less convenient.

Now, this is all offered in good heart but you did make the error of asserting that there were other ideas (by implication your own) that were more valid than Kathy’s. My take is that on two points you were not more valid, on one you highlighted the subjectivity of the issue and on one you made a snide comment and ducked the issue.

I hope I did this in a positive, friendly and non-patronising manner.

It’s about critical thinking, not intellectual superiority. I’ve known some very smart and some very creative people who aren’t terribly good at critically evaluating things. And in high school I was a pretty consistent C student—so you won’t be finding much intellectual superiority with me I’m afraid.

But I do pay attention to what people say. So, for instance when you say something like “One thing neuroscience knows for certain is that strong emotions and rational thought are almost mutually exclusive.” I wonder, because it’s a very bold and certain statement, how does neuroscience “know” this? Is this really what neuroscience knows? Is there evidence? But neuroscience is related to the physical nervous system (brain, spine, nerve endings, etc) and not the system’s emergent subjective or cognitive phenomena like emotions or reason. To be honest I don’t really know either way, but right off the bat because I’m paying attention to what you say, I find myself doubting what you say.

Regardless of what neuroscience knows or not, do you really believe that emotion and reason are mutually exclusive? That you cannot be both passionate and smart? What does this say about passionate users?

Now I’ll eat a little crow. I really should have made it clear up front that my ire was not about your post specifically, but rather about a much larger trend in design writing and criticism where opinion easily masquerades as knowledge. Your post was merely the one (as innocuous as it was intended) that came along at the “I’ve had enough” moment.

Also the “sheep” comment was not meant to refer to your readers (and indeed came before I even mentioned your posting) but a general reaction to a number of clearly sloppy posts I’ve read recently that were followed by a half-a-dozen minor variations of “I agree.” Since I both try to avoid making things personal on my blog, and try to direct my criticisms to the right places my comment was way out of line (an ironic failure of my own critical evaluation skills).

The other thing I should be more careful about is using an author’s name to refer to a single piece of their writing. Such metonymies are easily misconstrued to sound like I’m criticizing all of the author’s work, or worse the author as a person. I do feel bad if anyone feels personally hurt by something I\’ve said or written, that\’s totally not my intent, and I can only appologize.

Ok I think I’m done with the crow.

A thesis is just an argument proposition, a claim, a point, a conclusion; its not just a paper written by grad students. So, many blog posts are in fact theses—they’re making a point, a point supported by reasons or evidence. The point of your post I assumed was a short lament about how Europe seems to have a stronger appreciation for style than the US. It was a point I disagreed with, weakly supported by premises that I also disagreed with, that together furthered an unfounded but common cliché (sort of like the way comedians constantly joke about the French being rude—while completely false in my experience, it has acquired an aura of fact).

I’m sorry I didn’t get a tongue-in-cheek flavour from your words—I looked again, and still didn’t find it (but I did find that you have updated your bit on MySpace after my comments, and I’m assuming as a result of my comments).

And regarding my comments on your MySpace remark. Since you framed this post’s discussion on style and aesthetics that was where I stayed—so release cycles, etc., weren’t relevant. The style and visual aesthetics of MySpace are in fact a big part of what makes it great. There is a very strong semiotic connection between the stylistics of MySpace pages and the doodles, stickers and other things with which highschool students fill their textbook covers, lockers, desks and notes. MySpace aesthetics are the aesthetics of adolescence. If MySpace were any different it wouldn’t work, and the fact that you just don’t like them was my point. (looks like I correctly read into your originally phrased remark after all).

Yes I play a little rough. And yes I am very demanding of what I read, especially from writers who I know can do better—its just a blog is no excuse because blogs are peer-reviewed journals.

Anyway, thank you for caring enough to respond at length—because I believe caring, not agreement, is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion.

Well, you’ve certainly demonstrated your intellectual superiority — no arguments from me there.

I noticed that your post is *very* emotional, which is surprising given the value you (rightfully) place on logic. One thing neuroscience knows for certain is that strong emotions and rational thought are almost mutually exclusive. I appreciate that you’re angry about my post–and about the people who post a “thin pretense of insight”, and given your misperceptions about it–I can understand that. But I believe that if you had written your response from a less angry view–or simply ASKED me what I was thinking before you leaped to conclusions, you might have had a different perspective.

Your comments are good ones… hard to argue with your points. But you based them on some really bad assumptions. You extrapolated wildly (and in this case, inaccurately) about what I actually meant, and based your aguments on these wrong assumptions.

I’ll take the blame for the misperceptions–I tend to forget that not everyone who reads my blog is one of my regular readers, and that some people might take a single blog post out of context. Fair enough… it’s my job to make my intentions clear, and occasionally people do either take me too literally or too seriously (both of which happened here, I think) when they don’t know me or my blog. That’s a useful reminder for me, so I consider this helpful feedback.

I think your response may have started to go wrong here:
“…offers us the following thesis: a culture of design is about aesthetics and style, and such cultures flourish only outside the US. The corollary to this is that design culture withers in the US.”

This was a blog post! There was no “thesis”… this was my somewhat festive how-I-spent-my-summer-vacation-and-here’s-what-I-noticed thing. I would have thought that the Barcelona-girls-are-hot line was a bright flag that this was a few fun observations and not a peer-reviewed journal piece… Fortunately, I was only trying to spark some interesting and useful conversations with a few observations (and the comments of others were amazing and informative).

Then you said:
“She demonstrates her thesis with the following 4 points of evidence:”

Not a thesis, but OK… what I actually said was “a few more small examples”
And I’m not sure “small examples” is the same as “points of evidence”, but again… I’m not an academic writer (obviously!) and I’ll try to be more careful.

This one I found funny:
“…demonstrating a monumental incapacity to see beyond self-reference and betraying an absolute solipsistic miscomprehension of what makes MySpace so incredibly fantastic at what its does. Its like old folks in the 50s complaining about rock-and-roll–its a good sign that culture has left you behind in the loving arms of irrelevance.”

Wow! I’m impressed with how much you can parse out of a single line. You get bonus points for using “solipsistic”, but it does seem like that last sentence was a bit mean-spirited without adding much value. But in any case, you were dead wrong.

That was the first clue you hadn’t read my blog

And this line:
“miscomprehension of what makes MySpace so incredibly fantastic at what its does.” It looks like we’re going to have to disagree strongly on that point. Because what *I* think what makes MySpace so incredibly fantastic (we that it’s fantastic) is NOT the “aesthetic design”. Software design, yes. Culture/community design, yes. But it’s not the aesthetics that makes MySpace what it is.

If you’d like to know my thoughts on MySpace, they’re here:
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/03/ultrafast_relea.html

Again, given what you *thought* the post meant, and given the anger you felt about it, I can understand your responses, and they all make sense given your perspective.

BUT — there is one thing I REALLY take exception to in your post
“the throngs of praising sheep who eat it up”

It’s one thing to criticize me… I get that all the time, often well-deserved. But I draw the line when you so blatantly insult my READERS.

And some of those “sheep”, I’m afraid, are people you respect.

Your “twinkie” post contains the line:
“Check out some of the folks on my blogroll, folks like Niti Bahn, Presentation Zen, Black Sheep and Bubblegeneration, folks who shun the twinkies.”

Ironically, two of the four twinkie-shunners you mentioned are regular readers who’ve commented on my blog, and written about me on their *own* blogs many times (including a post YOU commented on!) If you really do read Presentation Zen, then I’m a little surprised you haven’t looked at his blogroll. It’s a very short list, and I’m on it.

And here are a few examples from the (I agree, VERY smart and savvy) Niti Bahn:

http://www.nitibhan.com/perspective/2006/03/paean_to_cl_tha.html

http://www.nitibhan.com/perspective/2005/11/workaholic_hour.html

http://www.nitibhan.com/perspective/2006/04/abundance_vs_sc.html

And from Presentation Zen, here’s a search result of some of the places where Garr has mentioned us. Garr and I have a mutual admiration society going, and I’m offended that you would imply that he might be a “sheep”.

http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=81647189&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=&bcd=÷&query=kathy+sierra

Of course you’re free to rebut, criticize, slam anything you wish about me or my blog or my co-authors. I make a LOT of mistakes. Getting critical feedback is one of the best parts of blogging, and again, you had some excellent points.

But your response was emotional, and you indirectly criticized two people you respect, simply because they read my “twinkies”. You’re free to refer to my work as “twinkies”, but these folks are NOT SHEEP and to imply that is definitely Not Cool.