Random Acts of Mind by Dones

Daddy teaches baby Josh how to nap on couch.
Originally uploaded by metamorphilia.

From one generation to the next.

Here is a paper I wrote for my Interface Design class. I thought I’d share:

Jonathan Ive is one of the most noted and influential industrial designers of the past two decades. His work as senior vice president of industrial design for Apple, Inc. has garnered him praise and recognition from as disparate sources as the Queen of England and the Design Museum (Sample). He will forever be known as the designer responsible for making personal computers look cool, because of his dedication to simplicity of design. Along with computers, Ive has changed the industry through his use of color, sleek lines, and integration of all hardware and software components.

Jonathan Ive came to Apple in 1992, but his claim to design fame arose after CEO Steve Jobs returned and the company produced Ive’s revolutionary iMac design sporting candy colors (ibid). He followed up that overwhelming success with the portable iBook, and later redesigned the entire product line again and again, to immense critical and public accolade. His design team has created innovative products that were before their time, like the ill-fated Newton, and game-changers like the iPod.

All of this almost never came to be. When Jobs arrived back on the scene in 1997, the company and its products were experiencing hard times. As BusinessWeek reflects on that time, the company’s offerings had begun “to look the same as everyone else’s,” and Jobs was in the market for a new head designer, until he gave Ive another look (Burrows). Usability guru Donald A. Norman, who was one of the ones let go at that time, recalls, “Jobs said: ‘This is the direction we’re going,’ and he unleashed Jonathan to make it happen” (Burrows). Thankfully for Apple and the design world, Jobs was right.

One of Ive’s first changes at Apple was replacing the drab appearance of products with a vibrant color scheme that set the company apart from competitors. Bondi Blue became something of a household name, at least within the industry, and Apple followed up that iMac accent color with a host of other jellybean hues. “Sorry, no beige” became Ive’s motto, and clearly the focus on color has continued through the current rainbow of iPod Nanos (Frost).

Since Ive’s coronation by Jobs, another notable design change has been the sleek appearance of Apple’s devices. The original iMac’s all-in-one design had tremendous appeal, and the product line kept improving from there. Later iterations of the iMac evolved through a desk-lamp-shaped base and screen to just the screen, hiding the processor and drives just behind a narrow-bezeled display. The drive to ‘sexy,’ cool-looking hardware has also been evident in Apple’s products since 1998. From the original iMac’s translucent plastic to the iPhone 3G’s glossy black glass touchscreen and stainless steel case, Ive’s team has consistently produced the kinds of devices that other companies emulate.
The iPod line has been immensely successful, in part due to the ‘sexy’ look and feel of the device which, again, continues to improve through the current iPhone, iPod Touch and Nano handhelds. However, the portable media player’s most appealing design feature is the seamless integration between the hardware and software interface. The iPod would be nothing without its ability to sync with the online iTunes Music Store, but the innovative click-wheel design removes much of the user frustration experienced with other media players (Burrows). According to Burrows in BusinessWeek, it is this integration that allows Apple to stand out in a market of cookie-cutter hardware that may or may not fully be supported by the software that runs on it. “What really sets Apple’s products apart is the ‘fit and finish,’” says Burrows, “the ultimate impression that results from thousands of tiny decisions that go into a product’s development” (ibid).

Jonathan Ive has stated in his recent interview with The Independent that he takes this theory of integration very seriously, and tries to focus his team on that mindset more above all:
’We have a very clear focus that all the development teams at Apple share, a focus around trying to make really great products. That can sound ridiculously simplistic, almost naive, but it’s very unique for the product to be what consumes you completely. And when I say the product I mean the product in its total sense, the hardware and the software, the complete experience that people will have’ (Beale).
From a strictly hardware-oriented perspective, this focus has manifested itself in unique and nearly undetectable ways, starting with the shape of the handle recess in the original iMac (Ive), continuing with the “bespoke toolset built into the rear casing” of the iBook (Sample). Kahney discusses how Ive explained “at length” the complexities and hard work that went into designing the G5 tower’s aluminum case:  “Like the curved outer case, the door is a single piece of metal. But it is more complex than it appears. Ive showed how the door’s fastening mechanism grabbed the door from the inside with a system of three sliding latches” (Kahney).

No one can doubt that by age 41 Jonathan Ive has had a career most designers would envy. Many designers would give anything just to work for Apple, let alone be given the go-ahead by Steve Jobs himself to head the company’s design team. However, Apple’s very reputation for innovative and user-friendly design must in large part be credited to Ive himself. If his focus on whole-product design were not part of Apple’s arsenal, the company might not have the growing market share it has appreciated during Ive’s tenure (Furfie). Ive’s influence in that growth should not be minimized. Jonathan Ive has provided designers with a road from which we all can explore the future, instead of simply looking at the world through boring windows.

Works Cited

Beale, Claire. “Claire Beale on Advertising: The boy from Chingford who puts the bite into Apple’s iconic design.” The Independent. (May 19, 2008). October 6, 2008 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/comment/claire-beale/claire-beale-on-advertising-830554.html>.

Burrows, Peter. “Who Is Jonathan Ive?” BusinessWeek. (September 25, 2006). October 7, 2008 <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002414.htm? campaign_id=ds7>.

Frost, Caroline. “Jonathan Ive: Apple of the iMac.” BBC News World Edition. January 18, 2002. October 6, 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/ newsmakers/1768724.stm>.

Furfie, Ben. “Mac Market Share on the Rise Globally.” PC Retail. (April 3, 2008). October 13, 2008. <http://www.pcretailmag.com/news/29628/Mac-market-share-on-the-rise-globally>.

Ive, Jonathan. “Jonathan Ive on Apple.” Design Museum, iMac 1998. October 8, 2008. <http://www.designmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/jonathan-ive-on-apple/imac-1998>.

Kahney, Leander. “Design According to Ive.” Wired. (June 25, 2003). October 6, 2008 <http://www.wired.com/culture/design/news/2003/06/59381>.

Sample, Ian. “Profile: Jonathan Ive.” The Guardian. (January 5, 2007). October 6, 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jan/05/design.digitalmedia>.

…I did make a couple graphical changes to the site. thanks for asking! I know it’s a little lacking, but what I really need to do is develop my own template. But that’s not going to happen just yet. Feedback and/or suggestions are welcome!

Watching Two Babies!
Originally uploaded by metamorphilia.

Wrangling my nephew and my son is getting more tenuous. No daddies were harmed in the making of this photo.

My wife and I laid the baby to bed, sat down with a bottle of Barefoot wine and some Niederegger’s marzipan, and watched tonight’s presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Here are my impressions, in no particular order, while watching the debate:

- On the current economic crisis, both candidates had well-crafted responses, but they didn’t really say anything new or insightful. This didn’t change anyone’s minds about anything. My wife actually went to bed at this point.

- Both candidates appeared to be on their A game tonight. McCain especially seemed quite prepared to battle Obama and tear him a new one, especially when discussing the Iraq war. Whether he actually did that is still up to the spinmeisters, but…

- Obama I think is trying to explain things, but they’re not coming out well. McCain’s attacks hit their mark hard.

- Obama had a few moments there where he was trying to set the record straight but was interrupting McCain’s statement, and it just wasn’t the way to go, in my opinion.

- Kudos to Jim Lehrer on a well-crafted debate. Instead of constantly saying ‘Time!’ to grown men as other moderators have, he outright encouraged them to create a dialogue. This is good debate & good television.

- Discussing Afghanistan & ‘Pockkistan’ now.  I’d say this was a draw.

- McCain bringing up a lot of history, which he was present for. In some respects, this was a plus: ‘I have a record on national security issues.’ In other respects, bringing up Eisenhower’s D-Day letters leads the listener to ask whether McCain was present at D-Day. Good discussion by McCain of the families of service members talking to him…that was good.

- Obama: ‘No soldier ever dies in vain because he’s carrying out the orders of his Commander-in-Chief…Are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe?” was well-spoken. ‘Muddling through’ Afghanistan was a loss to Obama, as McCain cleaned his clock in response.

- Lehrer stated that they’re even on time. Cool.

- Iran & Israel now:  McCain’s statement is not bad. I’m not sure about his ‘Nobody wants another Holocaust’ statement as particularly unique or pertinent. Plus his ‘League of Democracies’ doesn’t make sense to me. But he sounds good, and sometimes in debates that’s all you need. Obama agrees that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, but he says Russia & China need input. (He implied that Russia isn’t a democracy…interesting insight on his perspective there). McCain can’t say ‘Ahmadinejad’ but can roll off former Soviet leaders’ names without trouble. Obama responds to it by focussing on ‘Keeping America safe’ as being the key to whether or not he’ll meet with the Iranian leader, then points out McCain’s own advisor agrees with Obama. Pointing out the difference between ‘preconditions’ and ‘preparation’ is weak. Obama brings up North Korea as an example of how not to handle a country. McCain seemed weak about the Spain comment, but he makes a strong point about justifying Iran’s statements about Israel…

- New lead question: Russia. McCain won this part. Obama brings up some things, but McCain wins by pointing out the energy issue regarding Russia’s invasion of Georgia, based on the oil pipeline running through that country. What he says is really scary…but he seems on top of this situation, breaking down the situation between Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. Obama’s response sounds decent, and makes him appear capable to handle them. He gets back into energy, but instead of directly addressing the Russia-oil situation, he goes back to his overall domestic energy plan. Obama sounds good stating this, but he will get caught for that nuance, I think.

- Now we’re talking about nuclear power, and Obama’s trying to set the record straight again. McCain keeps right on with his statement, while Obama tries to interrupt. His rebuttal isn’t well done, so Obama pushes Lehrer for a new question. That’s not a bad move, but could seem like he’s conceding the issue, though I’m sure Obama was not actually conceding the issue.

- On the possibility of another 9-11 attack: Obama’s point about the perception of America by those overseas is the one that hit home for me. McCain can’t really trump that, in my opinion.

Overall, I think McCain won the debate (if one can name anyone the winner here). This debate does make me feel better about a possible McCain presidency, though anything would be better than where we are now (hopefully). I would rate McCain’s debate performance as an 8 out of 10, to Obama’s 6. Barack Obama should try to prepare more for the next debate.

Spin reactions:

- NBC coverage has Biden spinning for Obama that points out Obama was talking about the present & future, while McCain was only talking about the past. It’s good that he remarks about Obama’s freshness vs McCain’s age, but I’ll point out here that Biden has been in the United States Senate since January 1973, when John McCain was still a POW in Vietnam.

- Rudy Giuliani states McCain ‘gave Obama a lesson in foreign policy’ tonight. I think that’s a legitimate comment on the debate, but unfair to Obama. Rudy also talks about Obama’s budget plan, and again I think he makes a good point.

- The ‘Truth Squad’? Dumb, NBC…dumb. I don’t mind fact-checking, but you don’t have to make some stupid graphic to run in the background.

Commercials after the spin:

- The Pickens Plan people are starting to get on my nerves. A one-off commercial to lead viewers to the website. Hey guys, why in the world would I want to have a tank of compressed natural gas located just under my child’s carseat? I think the gasoline tank is bad enough in a severe wreck, thank you.

- An ad for the new Will Smith film ‘Seven Pounds’. Looks interesting, but makes me think he’s do a great job in an Obama bio-pic.

- McCain campaign ad: what, Obama couldn’t get the airtime?

This was too big to just be posted to Facebook. What’s the big deal, you say? Mr. Olberman explains this better than I can. Sufficed to say, how can McCain be trusted if he lies in private phone call to someone like David Letterman?

The Force Has Been Unleashed!
Originally uploaded by metamorphilia.

Guess who’s staying up late tonight?

Isabel Klint directed me to some online tests that I just had to take, so here are my results (no kidding):

Hue Test Results:

Based on your information, below is how your score compares to those of others with similar demographic information.

• Your score: 0
• Gender: Male
• Age range: 30-39
• Best score for your gender and age range: 0
• Highest score for your gender and age range: 1464

Subitization Test Results:

Oh, and Cade brought up the Sarah Palin Family Name Generator. Here’s my name:

Dones, if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Stick Freedom Palin

Who knows, Stick Freedom Palin you just might be president one day!

As I’m sitting here watching my nearly 5-month-old son haphazardly rolling around on the floor (thankfully he doesn’t move too quickly), I was reminded that I have yet to make known my thoughts so far about the presidential election. So I muted the rerun of ‘Psych’ on the TV, left ‘Cranky Geeks’ running in the background on my computer (man, I am a media hog), and warmed up the blog after a brief hiatus.

The bottom line is that I am still voting for Obama. The selection of Biden as his vice presidential candidate is a net minus in my book (more on that later), while Sarah Palin’s nomination as McCain’s running mate does nothing more for McCain than muddy the waters, at best (more detail on this to come as well). So nothing that has come out of the conventions nor their aftermath that will convince me to change my mind.

Senator Joseph Biden was a ‘safe’ choice for Obama’s running mate. But I don’t think he was the right choice. Yes, he solidifies the Democratic base, and he complements Obama’s perceived lack of experience, especially in the foreign policy realm (a problem that didn’t seem to stop Bill Clinton in 1992). My problems with him are as follows:

1) Biden started in the senate more than two months before John McCain was released from his cell in Vietnam in 1973. This is not my idea of a fresh face, or an agent of change. At least not the kind I can believe in. He reminds me a bit ofa Cheney to Obama’s Bush: a gruff, old-guard party politician who, from the second spot on the ticket, will exercise the party’s influence on the young, relatively unexperienced man who is charismatic enough to get elected.

2) Biden is not someone I would ever compare to Obama. Not to put on the tinfoil hat of conspiracy theory (and I am going somewhere with this), but it would be no surprise if a young, attractive progressive presidential candidate (or president, or any other political figure) were assassinated–especially if the man in question were the first african-american president of a nation with an unfortunate number of racists with guns. While a) I would never wish this on anyone, and b) hope for the best in my countrymen, JFK, RFK, MLK, and David Palmer from ’24′ might have something to say on the matter (that is, if they were still alive and/or real). The thing is, I would have preferred that Obama selected someone more like himself. This would theoretically make any would-be assassin think twice, because instead of one victim, he or she would need to find a way to kill both president & vice president. This is a far-fetched scenario, I know, but if Barack Obama were to die in office, I sure as heck wouldn’t want Joe Biden in the top spot. As it is, assuming that we aren’t so unlucky to have another president (or candidate) assassinated anytime soon, Biden is merely passable as a vice president. I guess I just don’t know why we need more old white guys leading us…

Speaking of old white guys, the Republicans have pulled another Bob Dole, in my opinion, with McCain. But that, and my thoughts on Palin, will have to wait for another time.

I don’t have much time to type, but let me briefly interject that I’m not all that pleased with Obama’s choice of Sen. Joe Biden for his VP nominee. While it’s not as antithetical to my preferences as an Obama-Clinton ticket would be, I don’t have a good opinion of Biden. I’ll have to do a little research to remind myself why that is, because it’s been a while since he was on my radar at all.

I will return in the next couple days with an answer, and a more fully thought-out reaction to this choice. I’ll give you this, though: Did we just see the start of another Bush-Cheney-like ticket?