] [Thread Prev
Re: Looper development and production costs?
The thing is, we're constantly bombarded with slick media in this
culture. We're used to it. People know when it's not there, even if
they can't verbalize it. I know what I do isn't rocket science, but I
don't think that everyone can do it well, or else we wouldn't be having
this conversation. Frankly, that site
http://fortNY.com isn't very good. It's an image with some centered
text. I wouldn't call it horrible, but it's amature, for sure. It
looks like an hour job. Sometimes that's all a client can afford, but
it doesn't change anything. Makes me think the same of the club. Now,
look at http://www.knittingfactory.com/ It's a pro job. I'm not saying
it's the best, but one look and I can see that time, care, and money
went into it. I then think, "quality." This isn't a problem with
people ON THIS LIST. What I'm talking about is EDP recruitment. I'm
worried if the Repeater takes enough of it's potential sales, Gibson
will give up on it. (again) If anyone doubts me, look at Apple
Computers. They're back on the map because they made their hardware
worse and made their cases cool. I'd never buy an iMac but sales from
it keep Apple going, therefore producing an operating system that's far
superior to Windows. Get it?
Tom Ritchford wrote:
> >I think one of the reasons I seem a bit curt on this subject is that
> >I work very hard every day as a visual designer. I wouldn't THINK
> >of trying to design the guts of a piece of digital electronics, or
> >write the code that makes it go. So, why does the opposite hold
> >true? I find this all the time.
> No insult intended, Mark, but visual design takes a lot less
> background to get right than hardware or software engineering.
> It's, er, easier....
> Now, I work with and have great respect for many visual; designers
> and when I want real design done I get a professional and
> I don't tinker with it myself of course.
> But I also a lot of my own web design and I constantly get
> positive comments on it -- because I "design" it to be minimal
> and spare with just a little ornamentation on it. eg
> http://fortNY.com a site for a little club,
> which I did in an hour and change
> (if I'd had time, I'd have tweaked the colour palette for
> the blogger...)
> The issue is simple. If I know exactly what I want with a piece of
> graphic design, it's a matter of work for me to get it -- work I can
> certainly achieve.
> Now, I've been a professional programmer for over 20 years and
> even if I knew EXACTLY what I wanted, I couldn't implement
> an EDP, Boomerang or a Repeater in a guaranteed flawless fashion.
> I'd do all sorts of background work, write a lot of tests
> and commentary and documentation, and it would almost certainly
> work well, eventually, but in the back of my mind, until it
> was finished, I'd never be quite sure that it was all going
> to work (this is why I worry the details around constantly
> until I'm sure I have it right).
> And usually there's a team involved, even more complexity and risk.
> So it's a forgivable sin for the builders of an object like
> one of these lovely loopers to downplay the role of the graphic
> design because it doesn't require the immense outlays of
> work and study that creating the unit does.
> Forgivable, but sad, because it means that some of the value
> of the builder's dedicated hard work and brilliance is not realized,
> because foolish people see it and don't notice it
> and smart people see it and wonder if the poor decision to
> have inferior design is a signal of other poor decisions
> within the company.
> http://whatGoes.com ................ extreme NY calendar.
> http://ax.to/fortune ......... a new fortune every minute.
> http://clikTrik.com .................. Many, many photos.