You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Just Because’ category.

So rather than post my now lengthy and messy outline, I figured I’d share a live Dropbox link of my current outline/document, so people can get a sense for how I’m organizing my content, and provide feedback if they want. Best of luck everyone!

post from Deepak on Facebook which led me to research the author introduced me to Marc Hemeon, Senior UX Designer at YouTube and Google. The original post from Deepak interested me in that this entrepreneur Hemeon cancelled a project somewhat prematurely when it ran into a child pornography issue. 6 months of work down the drain for an issue that almost every tech startup has to face, but I digress.

Further research into Hemeon’s posts lead me to one titled Design Process is a Myth.  Intriguing, right? Here’s some choice quotes:

“Every designer has their own unique way of solving design problems.”

Bad product design is fixed by hiring good designers not by adopting a better design process.”

“I create products and ideas by instinct, derived from my own aesthetic tastes and personal beliefs of how a product should look and feel after I have studied the problem. Here is a loose outline of how I tackle a design problem (just don’t call it a process).”


And finally…

“I let my idea soak until I can clearly picture how to solve the problem. The solution arrives as a clear eureka moment. A eureka moment is pure, and provides an elegant and obvious solution (at least thats how it feels in my brain). The eureka moment comes randomly when I don’t expect it. If I sit down and try to force eureka I freeze and end up wasting time.”

I can’t tell if this guy is trolling or for real, but it raises the question: are these the kind of designers we will work with in the future?

I was going to argue about why certain games and movies do not pass the test of time and more specifically why older games will die faster than older movies.

I want to be clear, I am excluding games like Tetris, old mario, games that have simplistic mechanisms. I want to talk about more complex game mechanics and how the complex interactions have gotten better over time which in result makes the mechanics of previous games feel sluggish and problematic. I am claiming that the better more advanced versions of certain interactions are slowly killing off the older games. The same way better visual effect driven movies are sort of ruining the older ones. If you do not have nostalgia associated with an older game, you will have a hard time playing it, or even understanding why it was such a good game when it came out.

Example: Re-watch “Star wars the Phantom Menace” Do not think about the movie, look especially at the visual effects. Back when it came out, it was the most spectacular thing you had seen, now, you can easily see the pixels! Now I am not saying this ruins movies like the old school “Clash of the titans.” I am saying Visual effects is killing itself.

Similarly, try going back and playing Half life, or even the first assassins creed. The interactions specifically feel problematic. For example in the newer games, if you character reaches an edge, they do not fall off. They sort of step near the edge and back up unless you force them to fall off. In older games like Prince of persia and even Zelda, if you reached a corner and stepped a little bit more than you should have you would fall. For long distance jumping you had to get the exact steps. Whereas in todays games, the game mechanics sort of compromise and complete the task any way. So I propose if you go and play an older game, these tiny differences will add up and make it a frustrating experience.

I need to do more research.


Not entirely sure what the question I have here is, I’ve re-written this a few times,and it’s not entirely concrete yet.

But based on something Jeff mentioned offhand – “Our field has struggled with adopting phenomenology for sometime”, I want to question either who’s doing it right, or rather what the best way to do it is?

We instinctively categorize in order to make sense of… well anything. The very phenomenological readings we’ve had have still introduced metaphors or models as a way of making sense of our felt lives. In many ways these separations are important for the author to even make their point at all. Dewey’s idea of experience is, while phenomenological, still dualist! It’s Feeling of Experience vs. “That other non-experience stuff that’s not as interesting”.

And this gets at the issue of language reinforcing this dualist way of thinking – but if you have to, say, write an academic paper, how do you construct a good phenomenological argument without a) breaking things down into disparate categories, or b) basically saying “Well, everything is holistically important, guys.”

In some ways choosing a focus or topic at all seems… against the belief. and yet building it up like this is a straw-man. Help me, I’m going in circles!

So my post is based off of Manali’s post below. I remember watching “The Devil Wears Prada” and thinking that Streep’s character looks really good and intimidating. There is no doubt she is the woman on the top. Her dress (voice and demeanor) in the movie all speaks to that. She very much embodies the “Executive Woman”.

After reading Manali’s post, it made me remember the movie and my impression of Meryl Streep at the Oscars for that movie “The Devil Wears Prada”. She does wear Prada on the red carpet but the look is very different. The image is here:

I remember my first impression of seeing the red carpet Meryl Streep and I remember thinking how “dumpy” she looks compared to her character. It kind of seemed wrong that her character looked so fashionable and put together and here she is on the red carpet, at the Oscars and she looks frumpy.

But now that I look at the image again (and having an idea of how Meryl Streep tend to dress on the carpet and the semiotic exercise we did), I actually quite admire her for her dress. She rarely dresses in the “Hollywood glamor” even though she does wear designers, but I feel like this allows her to be a bit more personable. It makes her seem like she is comfortable in her skin. She is still presentable but she will wear what makes her comfortable and she doesn’t really care how the media perceives her. People know she is good at what she does. The “sex appeal” image is also something that she doesn’t want to go for. She still seems like a person you can talk to (if you aren’t overwhelmed that she really is a really talented actress).

I came across this video and got a nice reminder of the semiotics class. The coding in the attire and the video setup is a clear callout to the transgression they are about to perform. I have not heard the original song “Thunderstruck” by AC/DC, but even though I was not entirely aware of the Artworld they are directly evoking, I can’t deny their performance was electric 🙂


In a world that has become so saturated with commodified signs that they have begun to lose meaning, sometimes it’s best to slap together a bunch of stock footage and just see what happens.


In addition to my previous post about fashion designer Iris van Herpen.

In the future, our clothes may be 3D printed. One of her quotes, “Everybody could have their own body scanned and just order clothes that fit perfectly.” Have a look at the article below and let me know what you guys think:

Also here is a sample of some of her dresses:

I do think they are kind of cool.

Dutch Fashion Designer Iris Van Herpen had models vacuum-packed and suspended in the air during her show during Paris Fashion week. This lady designed those really tall and weird-looking shoes Lady Gaga wears and does a lot with 3D print outfits.

Anyways, have a look at the link and let me know what you guys thing!

Just stumbled across this really interesting design yesterday, and thought I would share:


This design implies all sorts of really interesting lenses for critique: the hacking and reappropriation of commercial artifacts, commodification of government, civil liberties in a modern-day on-demand society, and even the notion that receipts are ridiculously wasteful (as anyone who has ever filled a prescription at CVS is no doubt aware).


Bonus: DRM Chair, a piece of furniture that self-destructs after 8 uses (listen for the clicks in the background!)