Design process discussion

[Necere]

However, I too am concerned about the level of vitriol I've seen recently and I'm glad for it to have been addressed.

@Necere, you do not have to keep your opinions to yourself. The issue is simply in the delivery, and it hasn't just been you

I don't understand where this charge of vitriol comes from. Have I engaged in "highly caustic or severe" criticism? Have I once called anyone a bad name, or used overly negative or harsh language to describe someone's work?

If you read through my posts in this thread, all I've basically done is go to lengths to explain what I believe good design principles are, and why they should be followed.

Is it because I said you can tell when a designer doesn't have a background in design? This is just saying that people who aren't educated and trained in a skill aren't as good at it as people who are. That's just pointing out the obvious, and seems like a totally uncontroversial statement to me.

Vitriol would be if I said something like, "this is terrible trash, and you should just give up because you will never be any good at this." I feel like any actual criticism I've directed at anyone has been extremely mild compared to what some people would have you believe is being said.

 

[Necere]

if we talk about what should be in a living room, what kind of living room are we talking about? a american classic? a more minimalistic nordic interior? maybe someone likes a more rustic vibes or even a more comtemporary aproach, that blends classic piece with more modern ones.

if we have a living room like this:

or like this:

then, would the sentry be the perfect pc case for this situation?

The only vaguely industrial thing in those pictures is the exposed brick walls. The furniture is stylish and comfortable - not particularly industrial at all, apart from maybe the shelves in the second pic.

 

[Biowarejak]

I don't understand where this charge of vitriol comes from. Have I engaged in "highly caustic or severe" criticism? Have I once called anyone a bad name, or used overly negative or harsh language to describe someone's work?

If you read through my posts in this thread, all I've basically done is go to lengths to explain what I believe good design principles are, and why they should be followed.

Is it because I said you can tell when a designer doesn't have a background in design? This is just saying that people who aren't educated and trained in a skill aren't as good at it as people who are. That's just pointing out the obvious, and seems like a totally uncontroversial statement to me.

Vitriol would be if I said something like, "this is terrible trash, and you should just give up because you will never be any good at this." I feel like any actual criticism I've directed at anyone has been extremely mild compared to what some people would have you believe is being said.

As I said, it isn't just you. You've voiced your opinions, that's fine. Defended them, that's fine too.

What isn't, and I'm sure you can agree, is when people get the impression that they're being spoken to in a condescending manner. I'm guilty of coming across that way too and I'm still flabbergasted as to how my words could be interpreted that way, but I digress. We as a forum come from all kinds of backgrounds, it's not trivial or uncontroversial to discuss the variety of tastes that we represent, especially on such a pertinent topic.

 

[Necere]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Consider Zaber's Sentry design isn't because the designers didn't have the right tools or toolset to achieve other results, but that they wanted to achieve the current results. A person's environment shapes a lot of a person's thought processes and thus designs. If they have spent a considerable amount of time in industrial mechanical engineering, it industrial design elements reflected in the Sentry design seems like the sort of thing I would expect from people either pursuing the design or having a considerable amount of experience in.

Considering the amount of cases sold and the demand for the second version, it seems people's tastes are different too.

But I never said that it looks industrial in a bad way The point of the SENTRY is, precisely, that it looks rough, spartan, industrial, utilitarian. It is a product that does what it implies by its design. Just like a wrench does. And I think that this is exactly what the Zaber brothers wanted to accomplish and they succeeded.

Of course, said design doesn't work everywhere nor it isn't for anybody... but it is coherent and it makes a lot of sense. Personally I don't have one because it doesn't match the style of my place, but otherwise I'd get one in a heartbeat.

So, you shouldn't try to look at the Sentry from your standpoint. Forget about right or wrong, we are talking different here. Sheet metal is not a limitation, it is a FEATURE. Powder-coat paint... another feature. Yes, those things aren't featured on sleek products... but Sentry isn't a sleek product. It doesn't try to be. It doesn't need to be. Sentry isn't a wannabe product. It isn't a "well, we don't have alu pannels but we have a hammer and some sheet metal". No. It is a "we want a case that is and looks rough and industrial and spartan and utilitarian. So lets build something following those lines".

With that said, though, I do agree that the Z on the sides takes away from that Spartan design... but the case itself I like a lot.

I think you've both misunderstood what I've said. Read the paragraph you're responding to again:

Honestly, the overall aesthetic of the case has never worked for me, and it's precisely because as prava said: it looks "industrial." As in, almost purely functional and utilitarian, and like something more suited to a factory or warehouse than a living room or den. But I understand you're quite limited in what you can do with sheet metal and the space you have to work with. I don't know that I could do any better, given the limitations, and can't really offer any suggestions on this front. The best advice I can give would be to try to play to the strengths of the materials, and let form follow function.

Note my added emphasis on "for me." This entire paragraph is one thought, and that first sentence should be the giveaway that what follows is expressing my own personal preference. When at the end I say, "I don't know that I could do any better," it should be understood in that context, i.e., better for my preference.

At no point have I said the overall design of the Sentry is an example of bad product design, or that it's right or wrong; I only singled out one specific element that I thought was a mistake, and everything else I've said either relates to that, or general design principles.

@prava, you and I are basically in agreement: the Sentry isn't for you, it isn't for me. You think the "z" element detracts from the design, so do I. The only real difference is that you like it more than I do.

 

[Necere]

As I said, it isn't just you. You've voiced your opinions, that's fine. Defended them, that's fine too.

What isn't, and I'm sure you can agree, is when people get the impression that they're being spoken to in a condescending manner. I'm guilty of coming across that way too and I'm still flabbergasted as to how my words could be interpreted that way, but I digress. We as a forum come from all kinds of backgrounds, it's not trivial or uncontroversial to discuss the variety of tastes that we represent, especially on such a pertinent topic.

It's hard to convey tone through text, and all too easy to misinterpret what people say, unfortunately. It's 9/10ths of the reason debates get so heated and emotional online, IMO.

I can understand the "condescension" complaint, and that's partly why I disclaimed my own lack of expertise, and deferred to an expert in the field by posting Rams' ten principles. To me it just seems like common sense that if you want to do something well, you ought to learn how to do it by studying and learning from those with expertise.

The other point I should've probably made explicit by now is there's a difference between designing solely for yourself, and designing a product that's meant to be sold to consumers. In the first instance, it's perfectly fine to do things however you want - by all means, do what makes you happy, be as artistic and creative as you want. It's in the latter where there are some established principles about what separates good from not-so-good design. When you're designing for other people, you're really designing for them and their needs/wants, and not for your own. It seems like a lot of the pushback I'm getting is people not being aware of this distinction.

 

[gunpalcyril]

Trying to have a sophisticated online discussion about design in an open forum is trying to invite disaster, everyone has an opinion and thinks they are the one with better ideas. This is a tough crowd lol, its super easy to get heated online because of the disconnect.

That said, some posts here say that design is art... "design HAS to work, art does not" that is just a quote I follow in my practice.

 

[Choidebu]

I only singled out one specific element that I thought was a mistake, and everything else I've said either relates to that, or general design principles.

@prava, you and I are basically in agreement: the Sentry isn't for you, it isn't for me. You think the "z" element detracts from the design, so do I. The only real difference is that you like it more than I do.

Let's get the discussion back to this one design element then, guys..

IMO the more you scrutinize one single element the more it'll break from its shell and abstracts itself in your mind. Kinda like if you repeat a word hundreds of time in yoir head.

But consider the opposite idea: take it away. But NOW you see the problem - it just looks boring, run of the mill vents.

Thing is necere, you came across as a college professor wanting their students to do better by droppping hints and literature at them, lol.

Without any workable suggestion, that's how it is. But I do learned a lot from your posts in this thread.

 

[owliwar]

The only vaguely industrial thing in those pictures is the exposed brick walls. The furniture is stylish and comfortable - not particularly industrial at all, apart from maybe the shelves in the second pic.

And I agree with you. but when these elements are brought together in a house, they convey the general style of a industrial living room.
at least that's how its known in decor and interior design/architecture.

The furniture has to be conformable and stylish, this things doesn't come cheap and people will want comfort. But when paired together with a certain color scheme that is commom in an old factory or in mechanical objects, the use of certain materials in decorative objects and process of making it that are akin to an old factory, That whole, together represents what a large group of people label as industrial style.

it could be sumed up as the general feeling that is based on ideal imaginative versions of a factory, mixed together with nostalgia that may not even be of the person per se, but a nostalgia aquired by older family members. I agree that its vaguely industrial, but in a living room that's exactly what a sum of people would describe it. Of couse there will be a lot of variants of this style based on who is choosing the colors and furniture but a lot of classic or atemporal furniture pieces are used in this kind of context, and a few of them were made for a factory at some points.

the point I was trying to make, at least in this general design discussion, was that sometimes what we convey may not be what is exactly what something is, but rather what it could be perceived into being. in this case a living room version of an industrial object.

cheers

 

[Necere]

And I agree with you. but when these elements are brought together in a house, they convey the general style of a industrial living room.
at least that's how its known in decor and interior design/architecture.

The furniture has to be conformable and stylish, this things doesn't come cheap and people will want comfort. But when paired together with a certain color scheme that is commom in an old factory or in mechanical objects, the use of certain materials in decorative objects and process of making it that are akin to an old factory, That whole, together represents what a large group of people label as industrial style.

it could be sumed up as the general feeling that is based on ideal imaginative versions of a factory, mixed together with nostalgia that may not even be of the person per se, but a nostalgia aquired by older family members. I agree that its vaguely industrial, but in a living room that's exactly what a sum of people would describe it. Of couse there will be a lot of variants of this style based on who is choosing the colors and furniture but a lot of classic or atemporal furniture pieces are used in this kind of context, and a few of them were made for a factory at some points.

the point I was trying to make, at least in this general design discussion, was that sometimes what we convey may not be what is exactly what something is, but rather what it could be perceived into being. in this case a living room version of an industrial object.

cheers

Sure, I get what you're saying. If we go back to the question of whether the Sentry fits in to that type of room, though, I would still say it doesn't. To me, the Sentry has more of a techie-industrial aesthetic - something like a server rack, and you're guaranteed to change the feel of the room completely with something like that in there. Where the other furniture might suggest a quaint, degreased industrial quality, the Sentry feels less refined, and more like just a piece of industrial tech hardware.

Cases with more of an emphasis on design, with a mix of materials is what I can see fitting into those rooms. For example:

Gtek Tenuis

Cryorig Taku

Design Hara

Design Hara

 

[Necere]

I disagree. Sweat the details. It's what separates the good from the mediocre.

Consider an example. This is the technical drawing for the corner radius on an iPhone:

Note that it's not a simple circular arc. It has a subtle flattening of the curve where it meets the sides.

Why did Apple's designers do this? The difference is so slight you'd never notice it in hand. The easy thing to do would've been to just make it a regular circular arc.

I don't actually know why they did it, but I can speculate: I think by tapering the curve like that, that when photographed or rendered, it produces a gradient contour across the transition from the curve and the sides. It's a subtle effect, but it better conveys the sense of curvature and "hand feel," and makes for a sleeker, more premium looking product.

Of course, the vast majority of people will never consciously realize this. But they will say it "looks nicer," even if they can't articulate why.

As a follow up to this post on Apple's corner radius, I just ran across this article going into it in further detail. The reason behind it is basically as I suspected, plus they use the same "squircle" shape in their icons, unifying the design language across both hardware and software UI.

 

[Smanci]

Despite the derailing and whatnot, the subject of this thread must be one of the most interesting and topical right now, with all these "custom" cases popping up and the lack of innovation with bigger manufacturers. Keep going.

I've no professional education regarding case/product design but this quote 100% sums up my opinion.

At no point have I said the overall design of the Sentry is an example of bad product design, or that it's right or wrong; I only singled out one specific element that I thought was a mistake, and everything else I've said either relates to that, or general design principles.

 

[Jello]

I've got a question regarding GPU clearances. How much clearance do you give to the back of the GPU, say if you're designing a console or sandwich style case?

 

[bledha]

Finally finished reading this thread, and wow, what a doozy! There are a lot of good opinions from folks and a lot of personal preferences that use some sort of justification as to allude to rules or whatnot.

Conversations like this can often be enlightening for all parties, as long as the flexibility of an open mind remains. Whenever someone brings up principles they are most likely taking an academic position. With all its pros and cons. My wife and I have spent the majority of our lives living and working in academia, and its environment is no stranger to (and sometimes seems to attract) snobbery when challenged by outside forces such as pop-knowledge, DIY, citizen science, market forces, or even personal taste. Only when these sides unite and there is reciprocal knowledge flow and building off one another can it be beneficial. Either that or simply just agree to disagree. @confusis is absolutely correct, there is no place for snobbery in a constructive space.

Let’s be honest, no one here can tell anyone else what ‘real design’ is while simultaneously saying it is also an artistic practice. We’ve all basically agreed no taste in art is principally wrong (save for maybe the Viennese Actionism movement, yuck!) and so no aesthetic element in a PC case can be, either. Maybe someone won’t like it, but whatever. That isn’t important unless say, you want to sell it to them.

Carrying a conversation from “I don’t like something” to justifying your taste through principles (or any other metric) only serves to say: “There is one way of thinking in this field, it is the way I was educated (or educated myself), and it is correct.” If you don’t like something, it is enough to say so, state your reasons and move on, someone else will always like what you don’t, and that isn’t a field worth dying on – for industry principles. A more useful and honest enterprise is to express opinions through the principles of one's own taste and perspectives - even if they are informed by your education - because Dieter doesn't have thoughts on the vents on these SFF cases. He could, but unless someone talked to him, he can't really validate any opinions.

All the custom cases designed on here are very interesting in their own way, and to defer to principles restricts the capability of open thought and creative free-range. I suppose it would be like criticizing James Joyce as an author becasue he didn't follow the foundational literary styles of English writers. Which is something that happens and also happens to be very limiting because well, I love James Joyce.

From an outside perspective.