A Visual
This was put up at Thoughts Illustrated by Dave Davison.
Now, Dave knows his stuff when it comes to presentation of ideas, the man has a long established track record, but I have to confess that the meaning of this diagram totally eludes me. Why is the “sweet spot” surrounded by “useless…..boring…..rubbish…..ugly”? What the hell is this supposed to imply? The rest of it has some promise.
Any IO or message experts care to weigh in ?
February 13th, 2010 at 7:34 am
I think he’s saying that if you have any two of the vital qualities, you have something that has a certain interest but isn’t the thing you should be shooting for, a sort of developmental stage or by-product or nice-but-no cigar-thing. But if you manage three out of four, you are getting close enough to the real thing that what stands out is the one element you are still missing: hence "useless … boring … rubbish … or ugly" respectively when you’ve got everything but "usefulness … interest … integrity … or beauty". . How true that is, I’d have to think about it a lot more. I tend to think that in the arts, beauty is what you get when you shoot for truth, and "prettiness" (which is probably my word for eye-candy) is what you get when you shoot for beauty. But I think my first paragraph describes what he’s getting at — and the paradox you’re picking up on ("useless … ugly" right next to the sweet spot) is pretty interesting. . A visual koan, perhaps?
February 13th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
On the way out the door for my Sat morning golf fix. But on short view, his "bads" relationship to the missing fourth element certainly reflect the approach to a game of golf. Why the bad seems to be the key here. Some thought required. Fore!!!
February 14th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Very reasonable interpretations.
.
My problem is probably approaching this diagram with a mathematical logic, as in "How does Form+ Interestingness +Integrity = Useless?"
February 14th, 2010 at 3:10 am
I think the equation should be Form+ Interestingness +Integrity + No Function = Useless
.
In other words, lacking one of the four essentials negates the successful message and results in something that has one of four flavors of half-assed. Lacking two of the essentials only amounts to a draft of some sort. Lacking three results in something that is just a curiousity for one of four reasons. If you lack all four, then you fall into the singularity.
February 14th, 2010 at 3:20 am
But isn’t useless between sucessful information design and integrity? it is a front between, and not a part of the centers of integrity, form and interestingness.
*
Integrity, form and interestingness are, in military terms, centers of gravity. Useless is a front between sucessful information design and integrity.
*
It is what separates the East from the West. You are of the East, while I must be from the West, ha!
*
Eye-candy is a front between integrity and form.
February 14th, 2010 at 3:30 am
"I think the equation should be Form+ Interestingness +Integrity + No Function = Useless"
.
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice, Mr. Schmedlap!
February 14th, 2010 at 4:04 am
Can’t function be beauty in itself? As such, not useless?
February 14th, 2010 at 5:22 am
It can in Platonic philosophy.
February 14th, 2010 at 5:29 am
And then form without function can have beauty, but is it useless? I think not!
*
It can add quality that is not quantified, but the opposite of quantity can be just as powerful in the positive as negative, so, perhaps, there is a better way to judge something than on quantity.
*
Perhaps the negotiations is somewhere in the middle.
February 14th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
XNF: [x] + no function = useless
Nouns and verbs later 😉
February 14th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Interestingness, integrity, form, and function are required for successful information design. Otherwise:
Interestingness, integrity, and form are useless without function
Integrity, interestingness,and function are ugly without form
Integrity, function, and form are boring without interestingness
Form, function, and interestingness are rubbish without integrity
February 14th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
"Integrity, interestingness,and function are ugly without form"
*
True enough, but if it doesn’t have form, how is a guy supposed to know if it is ugly or not, or is the fact it doesn’t have form, like 5GW, that we just have to assume it is ugly and avoid it at all costs?
February 15th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Reminds me of a great quote by Commandant Al Gray: "Communications without Intelligence is Noise; Intelligence without Communications is Irrelevant." Mr. Schmedlap nails it: all the right stuff, but without function, is useless. Take away the bias of pejorative and the chosen terms make sense.