Design in tech is stupid
jeremykooyman.com
jeremykooyman.com
No, actually it's the inverse. This trend has faded in the past 1-2 years. It's like he's ranting against grunge music in 1996.
>For instance, the cycling lights they featured prominently don’t cast sufficient light to ride in dark conditions, have a horrible attachment mechanism that doesn’t work on things that aren’t tubes, and apparently the battery mounts break easily. But you can lock them to your d-lock so you don’t have to walk around with your lights when you park your bike, so lets give them an award nomination even though they fail at their one primary function OF BEING LIGHTS.
That (and the other examples he gives) doesn't prove that "design in tech is stupid". Just that this product's functional design is bad, and that its creators should have paid attention to the other necessary attributes for such a device.
Remember the "Design is how it works" thing et al. But even if we are to think of design as merely the "cosmetic" part, then again, given two functionaly identical products, with the same capabilities, people would pick the more nicely designed one over the cruder looking version. That's because being pleasant to look at is also a feature (some people can't understand that, but there are ancient, $500 billion / year industries like fashion that work on this very principle, so it's not like it's some kind of passing fad).
The title is obviously a bit link-baity/ sensationalist, but this is unfortunately often required in blog-style writing. The title could have been something like "Some people think good design is interesting aesthetics but that doesn't matter if the thing doesn't work right in the first place".
The intention isn't that aesthetics don't matter, its that aesthetic design can complement, but not replace, functionality and user experience.