Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 8/28/13 9:58 AM, Bill Kearney wrote: > There's nothing limiting of the design that standardized components > brings to the process. Rather those help eliminate time wasted on > infrastructure details, freeing that up for customization of > human-facing aspects. It would be insane to have to drill down into the > nitty-gritty of plumbing pipe diameters, wire gauges or dimensional > aspects of lumber and sheet materials. At what level does the standardization cease? Pipe diameters are standardized, as are threads. But if pipe length was standardized, you'd have some incredibly ugly looking houses or weirdly misplaced fixtures. Life without ways to cut is pretty miserable. Markup itself is standardization - syntax standardization. Think of it as setting the gauges, diameters, and threads. Markup language standardization ranges from defining entire assembly lines to smaller pieces more like the electrical box I mentioned. Those come with various benefits and costs. > Now, does the ease with which standardized materials can be obtained > allow for blandness? Of course it does. But this is true for just > about EVERYTHING on the planet! Should we rail pointlessly about this > as some sort of evil? No, of course not. Better time can be spent on > building upon those basic elements to create the uniqueness a situation > requires. The trick is in coming to terms with just how much uniqueness > any given situation actually requires. Most don't. This is a reality > those enamored of 'designing' often ignore. And a reality that those enamored of standardization can't see past. You're not "calling bullshit". You're just declaring that your priorities should be blessed. I say no. -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
