Scan barcode
psalmcat's review
4.0
DIdn't read the whole book, just parts. Interesting stuff about (e.g.) where forks came from & how they evolved.
minsies's review against another edition
3.0
(Dug review out of the depths of LiveJournal.)
I don't really want to know anything else about cutlery now. Or paperclips. Or fast food clamshell containers. Which I guess means the book did its job. I enjoyed it. I am sure the subject matter is not for everyone.
I don't really want to know anything else about cutlery now. Or paperclips. Or fast food clamshell containers. Which I guess means the book did its job. I enjoyed it. I am sure the subject matter is not for everyone.
bzzlarabzz's review against another edition
3.0
The author's central argument is that failure breeds improvement rather than form following function. This seems like quite a narrow distinction to me, but perhaps that is an odd complaint from someone reading a book that details the development of the fourth tine on a fork and analyzes the comparative benefits of different rope-tying methods on now-antique bedsteads. The information in the book is interesting, however, and I have gained many more points of minutiae with which to astound my high school students.
bluepigeon's review against another edition
3.0
So after reading 30 pages in the past 6 months, I gave up. Though the subject matter is interesting, the language is too dry and does not flow. The book reads like a bland academic text book minus the pretty pictures. By the way, I am a scientist and I frequently read highly technical scientific papers (but not in the area of design and architecture.)
hilaritas's review against another edition
3.0
The parts of this book where he talks about the properties and forms of everyday objects and how they developed are fascinating. Unfortunately, those parts of the book are interspersed with long sections of inside-baseball industrial design arguments (constant theme: "form follows failure, not form follows function") and weirdly grumpy personal complaints about specific products or large swaths of technology ("Push button phones! Who needs 'em!"). Coupled with the author's dry as dust delivery, this book was more of a slog than I expected. While I learned some interesting things about various objects, I would not wholeheartedly recommend this fusty little volume.
snailcats's review against another edition
3.0
I would have considered this a five star book if the author had not gone on too long to make his points.
gengelcox's review against another edition
2.0
Petroski’s field is design, but his take on it is the history of design rather than the “science” of design as [a:Donald Norman[ (of [book:The Design of Everyday Things] fame). Although their approach is different, the two men share some of the same insights into how and why objects are the way they were. But where Norman’s philosophy is that an object can be designed to be “better,” Petroski feels that an object will always be less than perfect. His theory, in part, is that because most objects have multiple purposes, the object can not perform any single task perfectly. This idea of the competition of purposes is best illustrated from the book by Petroski’s examination of eating utensils. The perfect utensil would be one that could cut and lift food to the mouth for eating. But knifes that cut have difficulty in lifting, forks are almost useless with a soup, and a spoon doesn’t cut well. By showing us the evolution of the flatware selection (which remains imperfect), Petroski gives weight to his theory.
But I’m not wholly convinced. Perhaps it’s because I read Norman first that I want to defend him. I want to believe that objects can be bettered–an interface can be easier to use, etc. The difference between Norman and Petroski is also one of style. Norman’s prose is almost light weight compared to the dense, multi-syllabic approach used by Petroski, although Norman wasn’t afraid to use terms and ideas that were not in lay usage. It could be that Norman’s short columnar structure breaks up the duty of trying to convey so much information that makes his more readable prose. It could also be that Petroski likes the language of academia, even when it begins to obfuscate. From the design standpoint, both authors are worthwhile. It is important to see specific examples of real world solutions to design problems to come up with ideas for our own designs, be it a fork, a building, or software.
But I’m not wholly convinced. Perhaps it’s because I read Norman first that I want to defend him. I want to believe that objects can be bettered–an interface can be easier to use, etc. The difference between Norman and Petroski is also one of style. Norman’s prose is almost light weight compared to the dense, multi-syllabic approach used by Petroski, although Norman wasn’t afraid to use terms and ideas that were not in lay usage. It could be that Norman’s short columnar structure breaks up the duty of trying to convey so much information that makes his more readable prose. It could also be that Petroski likes the language of academia, even when it begins to obfuscate. From the design standpoint, both authors are worthwhile. It is important to see specific examples of real world solutions to design problems to come up with ideas for our own designs, be it a fork, a building, or software.
More...