tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post2162501077949230082..comments2024-03-28T22:00:35.840-07:00Comments on Playing D&D With Porn Stars: Jez Asked About Examples of Good RPG Graphic Design, So Here's SomeZak Sabbathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-37531563093797236942013-08-20T10:53:58.532-07:002013-08-20T10:53:58.532-07:00See?
Try harder, buddy.See?<br /><br />Try harder, buddy.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-1059908999232997982013-08-20T10:52:31.044-07:002013-08-20T10:52:31.044-07:00That made no fucking sense. I'm surprised you ...That made no fucking sense. I'm surprised you didn't read my comment as rhetoric so you could misapply logical fallacies to a conversation, rather than an argument. Then again, it's clear you have poor social intelligence. I'm out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-81192574890876588772013-08-20T10:45:21.119-07:002013-08-20T10:45:21.119-07:00Don't worry. Porn trolls make D&D trolls l...Don't worry. Porn trolls make D&D trolls look like Free Hug Day.<br /><br />And art trolls get _paid_.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-65824085288117256172013-08-20T10:40:03.233-07:002013-08-20T10:40:03.233-07:00I feel so sorry for David. Some of us followed you...I feel so sorry for David. Some of us followed you from post 1 David. Don't let Zak's word trap and misappropriated philosophical concepts get you down buddy,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-70087388655707135742013-08-19T18:51:48.357-07:002013-08-19T18:51:48.357-07:00I don't mind divergent tastes, I think compari...I don't mind divergent tastes, I think comparing divergent taste is interesting and useful and important. And yeah that makes sense I can see how you'd like that, though it's hard to get a clear sense of that cleanliness from the image above. I'd like to get my hands on that book. . . as well as hardcopies of the Realms of Chaos books, the PDFs rock but as tools I bet they might suffer compared to actually having a book to flip through.Nate L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02173472885140308661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-69679845677645553432013-08-19T18:38:44.717-07:002013-08-19T18:38:44.717-07:00@Nate L
If you think that section of map looks gro...@Nate L<br />If you think that section of map looks gross then that is a point at which our tastes diverge.<br /><br />And i won't pretend my job making art means my taste is more important than yours.<br /><br />I could use what I know about art to _describe_ why I like it, but I don't think it would or should persuade you to like the way it looks any more than I would think describing what a cheeseburger you don't like tastes like to me would or should change your mind about how it tastes.<br /><br />To me the map looks very crisp and textured, with a clear and almost sculptural sense of the layers of sea level, grass and canopy. Most maps go for a very flat 2d presentation or else a sort of tortured topographical look with clubbed mounds of mountains competing for attention with actually useful info, whereas this one isolates each layer and type of terrain with an almost MarioWorldish cleanliness while still evoking the view from an airplane window.<br /><br />Again--none of that need appeal to you, I like it very much.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-84884546380490479162013-08-19T18:29:30.881-07:002013-08-19T18:29:30.881-07:00@David - I'm gonna toss my hat in the ring for...@David - I'm gonna toss my hat in the ring for Zak here, reading this conversation has given me a lot to think about design . . . but not a lot of those thoughts have come from your end. <br /><br />1. wrt to "you use your intelligence as a front, you have a big ego, etc" In my experience of reading Zak's discussions online, and seeing the way he reacts to them afterwards, he /is/ primarily curious and willing to change his mind if a person can have a reasonable discussion with him. As far as I can tell he says what he means and means what he says . . . which yes can seem menacing. Incidentally the fact that that seems menacing to a lot of people says volumes about the normal level of discourse on the internet, and off of it. But I've never seen him argue in bad faith.<br /><br />2. Regarding "aesthetics" and typeface in RPG design - I thought Zak conceded that the images above weren't examples of beautiful graphic design? The point is that they don't /need/ to look beautiful, because they're primarily tools. Beauty would be an afterthought, and game designers don't necessarily have the time or money to devote to that kind of beauty. But I don't think any of us begrudge beauty in tool design. It's nice to have a beautiful object to work with, but it's more important to have one that gets the job done. And so many existing tools /don't/ get the job done.<br /><br />That's why this conversation started in the first place. A lot of us have noticed the zillions of beautiful products that don't serve their purpose (bad published modules, bad and confusing rulebooks, labyrinthine character sheets, vague art, and so on); then someone asked Zak (a game designer and artist) if he knew of any 'well designed' game products; and then he helpfully posted all those pictures with reasons why he thought they were good tools, along with a handful that he thought were beautiful as well.<br /><br />So your first response - "Functional? Sure. Good? Not so much." - just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We all know the presentation isn't stellar, but beauty in presentation isn't the point here. <br /><br />I don't know how to say this more clearly than Zak already has, but I hope this makes sense to you.<br /><br />3. @Zak - If anything might clarify this conversation about "presentation" in game design, it's the comment in your original post about Qelong, where you specifically said "it's useful AND beautiful." Uh what do you like about it, aesthetically? Is the beauty an effect you might only be able to see with the product physically in front of you? Because I think the image you linked looks kind of gross. I can't quite put my finger on why - something about the different greens and purples, and the white font on top of it. But I understand why it would be a good tool.Nate L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02173472885140308661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-83492699797577156582013-08-19T03:08:16.842-07:002013-08-19T03:08:16.842-07:00I _only_ use RoC at the table in D&D (looking ...I _only_ use RoC at the table in D&D (looking up mutations when they occur and rolling the narrative campaign hooks when the players go off the beaten path) and when I play 40k wargames you gotta look stuff up in there all the time "What exactly does a demon sword do?" and it happened a lot when was a kid, so I wouldn't exactly say that.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-90103004277592747782013-08-19T02:52:54.440-07:002013-08-19T02:52:54.440-07:00Sorry I missed the bit where you recognised the fl...Sorry I missed the bit where you recognised the flaws of the layout on Stonehell as it was in the comments not in the main post.<br /><br />It's hilarious to think of all those people working on Judges Guild and Alarum and Execersions worrying so much about basic typography and consistently failing at it, rather than them just not really giving a shit or having a clue as I'd always assumed. lol. Then again http://i.imgur.com/bJqHn.jpg<br /><br />Another thing that ocurred to me is that RoC isn't supposed to be used at the table, it's primary use is in between games.zhu bajieehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08004498036257289234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-43530583125190459742013-08-19T02:13:25.084-07:002013-08-19T02:13:25.084-07:00"poor aesthetic "
You again confused yo..."poor aesthetic "<br /><br />You again confused your personal preference with an objective fact.<br /><br />Do you realize you're doing that?<br /><br />Also, if I was trying to badger people into conceding I wouldn't be asking these questions because I wouldn't be _curious_.<br /><br />Like: you're repeatedly saying crazy shit. I am curious to know why.<br /><br />If you _concede_ I never know why, my curiousity is not sated, and I learn nothing.<br /><br />And, obviously, your whole psychobabble under (4) and (5) were just covered. A lotta people confuse curiousity with some kind of menace to them personally and lash out like that.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-57015546725572919722013-08-19T02:06:53.511-07:002013-08-19T02:06:53.511-07:00"Design obviously isn't just a form, it i..."Design obviously isn't just a form, it is in fact a process. "<br /><br />Dude, I said that already. Design's a verb.<br /><br />But you seem to be confusing two ideas.<br /><br />"what does the word "design" mean" which is an easy question which I answered<br /><br />and <br /><br />"what are things involved in the job of a designer"<br /><br />which is what you're on about now<br /><br />Like: Feedback is not design.<br /><br />If I go "that fucking letterspaced gil sans is fucked up" I'm not designing.<br /><br />If my designer acts on that, that's design.<br /><br />But NONE of this wordmangling explains what you think of what I just laid out:<br /><br />"<br /><br />Like I'd say, in terms of effect on the world, if you weigh "typeface looks nice" (etc) equal to "useful at the table" you are:<br /><br />#1 Just going against my personal priorities<br />#2 Going against what is, in the end, good for most gamers<br />and<br />#3 Accepting an orthodoxy that has lead to a lot of bad or suboptimal things in gaming happening<br /><br />Aesthetics that have no functional end are great, but not at the cost of functionality<br /><br />ESPECIALLY in a product only the GM reads and<br />ESPECIALLY in a scenario, which is used rarely, and referenced at the table during play<br />"<br /><br />Question:<br />Do you really think that in the face of that, when designing a dungeon, function and aesthetic details that don't affect function are equal?<br /><br />Yes or no?<br /><br />And if so, why? What does anyone, including you, get out of that?Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-53056422156311374022013-08-19T02:01:35.693-07:002013-08-19T02:01:35.693-07:00Part B)
So..
I submit that the examples you pres...Part B)<br /><br />So..<br /><br />I submit that the examples you presented are good, quite possibly excellent examples of the first stage in design (a.theory) The proper label here is user experience design. Or UX. Quite literally designing the experience you want a user to have<br /><br />I also suggest that the second stage (b.production) is lacking, it has a poor aesthetic and would appear not to have been considered in a fashion that befits such a good first stage of design (a.theory) The proper label for this stage would be the graphic design. quite literally designing the graphics.<br /><br />So you can see that I am correct thusly: by breaking down the definition of the word design, we find different area's of expertise. User experience. Graphic. Product. Games. Level. Interface. etc etc. They are all areas that fit into a catchall process 'Design"<br /><br />We know this to be relevant to the argument, as you don't get a job as just 'A Designer' you can get a job as a designer - of something. Therefore its evident that the something, ie the breakdown of the process is important. Otherwise you wouldn't need skilled people to handle separate tasks. And if it is important, as we have established just now, it is then worthy of being examined in isolation AND in process.<br /><br />I think that this more than outlines what i think and why im right.<br /><br />At this point i think its fair to say that the dialogue is over, i sincerely doubt either of us are going to add anything more of merit to it. We are arguing (or conversing whichever label suits you) about too little, too much. <br /><br />There a few things i've learned. About myself and you.<br /><br />1) i'm an art snob - probably fair assessment, i'd call it being visually driven, but thats probably snobby too right? (rhetorical question, i don't need an answer)<br /><br />2) I'm not actually stupid - i just don't present my argument/opinions in a fashion that suits you. You have pre conceived rules about how ideas should be presented that other don't and shouldn't have to share, we did not all do debating at high school. (ie cut us some slack)<br /><br />3) You use your intelligence as a front allowing you to harangue and badger people with opposing opinions into conceding. I know this to be true from the several posts where you have directly insulted me, through the thinly veiled argument of, 'your arguments are badly presented/you don't understand how to argue and therefore you are stupid.' (the same could be levelled against me no doubt, albeit im not trying to use my intelligence as a front)<br /><br />4) You have a big ego, and don't want to lose face or appear wrong. This evidence has been presented in point 3, i would suggest that a lot of the intense, aggressive debate coming from your side is down to the fact that your ego wont allow you to be 'bested' or seen as being incorrect.<br /><br />To further illustrate this point im sure you will want to get the lastword, or carefully de-construct my post showing how it was me all along that was being an arse. This would be your ego, if you dont have one - let it go.<br /><br />5 ) We both love to argue, the evidence is the lengthy posts above.<br /><br />Now as i've already stated why im right about my points raised in this, and the post's above - you have have stated your side, and it fair to say that we have reached a point where going any further is futile, i'll leave it with you. Just bear in mind that there is no need for a response to this, we both know each others opinions on the matter, I wont be reading any replies as i consider the matter closed. Any further responses would be an appeal to your own ego or an attempt to incite further pointless debate.<br /><br />It has been fun, thanks.<br /><br />Kindest regards.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-55699590648351388342013-08-19T02:00:53.227-07:002013-08-19T02:00:53.227-07:00Part A)
If it seems like an insane statement, the...Part A)<br /><br />If it seems like an insane statement, then it can't be anymore absurd that the original "Design is just a form" statement. It was after all a response.<br /><br />Design obviously isn't just a form, it is in fact a process. This is self evident to anyone who has ever designed anything.<br /><br />The process is thus:<br /><br />A.Theory - B.Production - C.Consumption<br /><br />Theory , this is the part with the ideas, you think about the other two steps (B.production and C.consumption) you ask questions such as: How will i create this? Who will use it? What will it look like? What journey will the user be taken on - if any?<br /><br />Production - The graft, this is where you enact and bring to life all the questions you have answered in the first step. You may finesse those questions as complications arise, however the goal generally remains the same, if it doesn't you need to go back to the brief.<br /><br />Consumption - The artefact is handed over to its target audience, you may also receive feedback (just like vornheim?) Its your prerogative whether you act on this feedback next time round. (just like vornheim, which i believe the feedback was largely positive, i.e keep it up)<br /><br />Why am i explaining this? It appears you do know what design is, but have misinterpreted the whole process. Or be wilfully ignorant in order to prove a point? But i doubt that, you're too smart.<br /><br />So we have established that design is a process, one that can be broken down and evaluated. And furthermore that one of the steps is determining a users experience. We should be able to critique this step separately without detracting from the merits of the other two steps (b.production and c.consumption)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-13538152400654095472013-08-18T16:53:12.003-07:002013-08-18T16:53:12.003-07:00@zhu
Again, Stonehell is _correctible_ but it'...@zhu<br />Again, Stonehell is _correctible_ but it's still better than everything else on account of how every other dungeon designer was busy tryna get the right number of columns and adjust line lengthZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-82799133548565817112013-08-18T15:40:16.194-07:002013-08-18T15:40:16.194-07:00Stonehell. It's a well known fact that long li...Stonehell. It's a well known fact that long line lengths are difficult to read (theres a reason for multi-column broadsheets and the size of novels - the eye is better at many short hops than long ones). With that in mind, the Stonehell Room Key should be split into 2 columns. Also Table A heading and subead should be better visually differentiated, and no nead to repeat "Crypt" 3 times - signal to noise ratio is off. Otherwise pretty good. Always liked the Marvel Super Hero chart.<br /><br />To me Realm of Chaos Slaves to Darkenss has a completely different feel to Lost and Damned. 2 words: Ian Miller.zhu bajieehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08004498036257289234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-90263095181543729832013-08-18T15:09:04.306-07:002013-08-18T15:09:04.306-07:00""Design is just a form." Incorrect...""Design is just a form." Incorrect, i would say that it can also be theory and ideas.<br /><br />That seems like a literally insane statement to me, like saying grass is also "theory and ideas". Like: design is a verb. You do it. You can have theory and ideas ABOUT it but that isn't what it is.<br /><br />"Would you say art is just form?"<br /><br />Yeah.<br /><br />BUT THAT;S A TANGENT....<br /><br />Let's get back to this.<br /><br />I submit that 30 years of RPG publishers getting design that weighed "looks nice" equally to "actually fucking functional at the table" has resulted in a ton of bad things"<br />-modules not getting used<br />-modules getting used and it not being fun 'cause it's so slow<br />-GMs giving up in frustration<br />etc etc<br /><br />Like I'd say, in terms of effect on the world, if you weigh "typeface looks nice" (etc) equal to "useful at the table" you are:<br /><br />#1 Just going against my personal priorities<br />#2 Going against what is, in the end, good for most gamers<br />and<br />#3 Accepting an orthodoxy that has lead to a lot of bad or suboptimal things in gaming happening<br /><br />Aesthetics that have no functional end are great, but not at the cost of functionality<br /><br />ESPECIALLY in a product only the GM reads and<br />ESPECIALLY in a scenario, which is used rarely, and referenced at the table during playZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-71015829218129769782013-08-18T14:58:22.635-07:002013-08-18T14:58:22.635-07:00That was a polite - "lets pick this up tomorr...That was a polite - "lets pick this up tomorrow" didn't think it was polite? I've covered this before, i feel you are being overly delicate and reading too much into my tone. Thats by the by, and doesn't really affect our conversion my end.<br /><br />1. No. Not necessarily. (but often yes, it can be subjective - the subjective part is the reason i expanded on this point rather than giving a binary answer, do you not understand that this could be a 'grey area' in need of exploration in this conversation? It would be helpful if you are looking for reasonable and thorough discourse that we could expand and get clarification as we both need to, not just one side)<br /><br />2. You did ask who cares. "who cares if you do or don't respond aesthetically to the typography." Poorly framed question then?<br /><br />But i get where you're going with your response, so i wont be pedantic and reply, Your example of a shoe is invalid, the font doesn't have a direct relationship to its function, however a font on a page layout does. We read the page therefore visible elements impact that process/experience.<br /><br />Why does the typesetting (amongst other elements of graphic design) impact my experience? Because i enjoy well laid out, good looking pages. Is this significant? you could argue against i suppose (id suggest its personal preference and has an element of inferred significance to the owner of the opinion)<br /><br />3. You happy with my response to 1?<br /><br />4. ^<br /><br />--<br /><br />"Design is just a form." Incorrect, i would say that it can also be theory and ideas. Would you say art is just form?<br /><br />"Function is what happens when the design is turned over to a person." In a sense, thats why we have UX designers to pre-empt that journey of interaction.<br /><br />"Well both but different projects require different priorities.The answer depends largely on how the thing is used." Almost correct and this is important. but ill get back to it*<br /> <br />"Like whether it would actually move the needle in you buying/committing to it." If a product is visually un-appealing, there is a chance if i haven't absorbed the true nature of its superbly designed user experience that it could get passed over. Probability dictates this is true for others also.<br /><br />Now back to the *.<br /><br />You say that design has different priorities and i agree, and thats the crux of this argument. You place more value on the functionality (or the over performance of the function in relation to the others) in this case, i however suggest that all of the considerations should be weighed as equal. If one is deemed less important, then all are as unimportant (in the eyes of the designer)<br /><br />Again, let me state. It does not diminish its usefulness. An ugly shoe still keeps your feet dry. You just look like shit whist walking through puddles, and if your buying a fashion item then its a poor example of a fashion item.<br /><br />"If a page is good for reading, then how badly designed can it really be?" As badly as it is designed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-49000076854773538322013-08-18T13:57:51.587-07:002013-08-18T13:57:51.587-07:00Actually, now I look closely, I can't see a si...Actually, now I look closely, I can't see a single example of an orphan in the examples, David.Nagorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10805769538648631984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-21961212464332597342013-08-18T13:49:49.557-07:002013-08-18T13:49:49.557-07:00You came _here_ buddy.
You wanna talk, make sense...You came _here_ buddy.<br /><br />You wanna talk, make sense so the rest of the world isn't wasting their time.<br /><br />You don't wanna talk? Nobody's forcing you.<br /><br />No need to be snippy.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-86733276565835287922013-08-18T13:47:46.853-07:002013-08-18T13:47:46.853-07:00Zak, you've written a long post and its late, ...Zak, you've written a long post and its late, i'll skim it and then have a good read tomorrow and respond, as not to rush and say something that would make me appear stupid. heaven forbid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-33756474719436065432013-08-18T13:41:02.547-07:002013-08-18T13:41:02.547-07:00"i'd say both, and as such each element c..."i'd say both, and as such each element can be critiqued independently of each other"<br /><br />Surely if the answer is "both" then each must be critiqued in reference to the effect improving that aspect has on the other, and the trade off/compromises that are inevitable? It seems unreasonable to say that a family car can't do 160mph without mentioning that changing the design to allow it would obliterate the usefulness as a family car, for example.<br /><br />"Can a page not exist as an object that one derives pleasure from just being read?" <br /><br />Certainly. Harmonic proportions and use of margins, fonts, and line length etc. can make a beautiful page out of a text in a language you know nothing of. But I would counter that it is impossible to make an ugly page which is also good for reading. If a page is good for reading, then how badly designed can it really be? Accepting that anything can be improved, of course.Nagorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10805769538648631984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-37455347992340082102013-08-18T13:34:28.297-07:002013-08-18T13:34:28.297-07:001. It is. answer it.
I need an answer because I do...1. It is. answer it.<br />I need an answer because I don't even know how to frame useful conversation without clarifying that simple point. If the answer is "yes" then one set of clarifications is needed, if the answer is "no" then another is needed.<br /><br />It is part of the nature of all request for clarification that _neither side is sure_ what the other side does not understand about their position: thus the need for clarification.<br /><br />2. I didn't ask if you care, I asked _why_ anyone (including you) should care . Like I don't like the font on the bottom of my shoe, but that doesn't constitute an argument that that particular thing is an important part of evaluating the shoe.<br /><br />Please explain why a taste clash in typeface affects your experience significantly.<br /><br />3. See 1<br /><br />4. See 1 for why I'm asking for answers. I asked a bunch of questions. Please <br />actually<br />answer<br />them<br />it will help this be a conversation.<br /><br />_<br /><br />I'll try to answer all your questions. If I don't answer any, say that.<br /><br />"what is design?"<br /><br />The difference between what everyone on a project other than the designer turns over to the designer and what the designer turns over to the printer.<br /><br />In the case of graphic design it is usually the visual presentation of a given set of pre-determined information.<br /><br />"just the function, just the form or a mixture of both?"<br /><br />Design is just a form. Function is what happens when the design is turned over to a person. If this is reliably the same it can be considered to be due to the design.<br /><br />A less vague question would be: What's the point of design, to inculcate a function or to look good?<br /><br />Well both but different projects require different priorities.The answer depends largely on how the thing is used.<br /><br />I am arguing that in a one-user-uses-maybe-once-maybe-twice thing like a dungeon you need function waaaay over looks good if there's a clash between these 2 priorities.<br /><br />I am also saying that this design problem has been solved so poorly in almost all previous examples that if this isn't "good" then no dungeon design is.<br /><br />Further, because so few designers are familiar with GMing or playing or take the work seriously, people have been paying soooo much attention to the easy standardizable shit (kerning) that they lose the forest for the trees (functionality) and have been losing it for 30 years and so a thing that finds the damn forest is "good".<br /><br />" even if that group is a minority, do they still not deserve to be catered to?"<br /><br />Maybe. But the question is whether your first statement that this is "not good design" delineates a line that would make it more useful or desirable to you or not. Like whether it would actually move the needle in you buying/committing to it.<br /><br />And then, further, whether (assuming you did buy it) whether it would have any effect on the game experience.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-36877723864499270892013-08-18T13:16:46.966-07:002013-08-18T13:16:46.966-07:001. I didn't realise the question was binary, y...1. I didn't realise the question was binary, you should have stipulated that. <br /><br />2. I care, and i must assume that other people care. (i draw the assumption from the fact that there is no such thing completely unique individual, my likes and dislikes will be shared by others. probability tells us so - and even if that group is a minority, do they still not deserve to be catered to?)<br /><br />3. see 1.<br /><br />4.My answer doesn't ignore your question, It answers it by asking further questions to get to the root of the issue so it can be explored. Are you looking for binary yes/no answers? if so why?<br /><br />5. You failed to answer any of the questions I raised in response. please answer them if you wish to continue the conversation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-62614780558236382202013-08-18T12:47:01.239-07:002013-08-18T12:47:01.239-07:00!. You didn't answer the question. It was a ye...!. You didn't answer the question. It was a yes or no question. In order for your argument to be coherent you need to answer it.<br /><br />2. If it doesn't _actually_ (i.e. literally) hurt your eyes then in who cares if you do or don't respond aesthetically to the typography.<br /><br />3. See 1.<br /><br />4. Your answer here seems to completely ignore what I typed (i.e. about different page having different functions) please try to answer it again less vaguely.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-66160645476426393162013-08-18T12:43:29.464-07:002013-08-18T12:43:29.464-07:00"Wow, you're answering questions. Big imp..."Wow, you're answering questions. Big improvement." - thanks, you make me want to be better than i am x<br /><br />1. what is design? just the function, just the form or a mixture of both? (i'd say both, and as such each element can be critiqued independently of each other)<br /><br />2. Only partial agreement here. Stonehell has great function yet hurts my eyes. (abstraction, it doesn't actually hurt my eyes)<br /><br />3. See 1.<br /><br />4. Are assuming that the ONLY function a page layout has, is to transfer data? Can a page not exist as an object that one derives pleasure from just being read? Do you read because you enjoy looking at rpg books, or is it solely to increase your knowledge and as such derive no pleasure from the process of looking at a well design page?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793747524509341262noreply@blogger.com