Scan barcode
bechols's review
4.0
Really interesting framework for thinking about complex problems and solutions. I'm skeptical about application of the actual method. Exhaustively defining similarly-scoped misfits with simple relationships to all others seems difficult, and subject to the linguistic ambiguity he's trying to avoid. It could be cool to try out using modern graph visualization tools.
danott's review
3.0
This book was a slog for me. Not that it wasn’t enjoyable… but I never felt the desire to pick it up.
On the whole, I enjoyed it, but I don’ know that I’d recommend it. Alexander’s thesis is that design can be modeled by taking into account all the variables, and creating diagrams that communicate the relationships in between them. Identifying which variables are congruent, which are in conflict, we can distill a mathematical formula that will lead us towards a functional design.
While I love the emphasis on legibility and predictability, I found the formulas lacking in applicability and explanation. Maybe I missed the point.
The greatest takeaway from this read, was the concept of “misfits”. Alexander’s argument is that when we set out the requirements of a design, we cannot so much articulate what a thing should be, but are more capable of suggesting what experiences break the requirements. These misfits are quantified by feelings. If a tea kettle feels unbalance when you pick it up, that is a misfit experience… but from the outset, you can’t define what it means for a tea kettle to feel balanced in your hands.
Lots of great out of context pull-quotes if you want to mine them. I didn’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the whole, I enjoyed it, but I don’ know that I’d recommend it. Alexander’s thesis is that design can be modeled by taking into account all the variables, and creating diagrams that communicate the relationships in between them. Identifying which variables are congruent, which are in conflict, we can distill a mathematical formula that will lead us towards a functional design.
While I love the emphasis on legibility and predictability, I found the formulas lacking in applicability and explanation. Maybe I missed the point.
The greatest takeaway from this read, was the concept of “misfits”. Alexander’s argument is that when we set out the requirements of a design, we cannot so much articulate what a thing should be, but are more capable of suggesting what experiences break the requirements. These misfits are quantified by feelings. If a tea kettle feels unbalance when you pick it up, that is a misfit experience… but from the outset, you can’t define what it means for a tea kettle to feel balanced in your hands.
Lots of great out of context pull-quotes if you want to mine them. I didn’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posobin's review
5.0
Incredibly thought-provoking and thus enjoyable. Fun to spot the sprouts of Alexander's later works here.
narrowdesign's review
4.0
First half is a 5. Second half is a 3 (maybe a 4 if you can comprehend the math)
qwerty88's review
informative
slow-paced
3.0
this seems to perpetuate some colonial attitudes about design and innovation in the global south & other colonized groups. the concepts are decent, but I think it skims over some key things (like the water problems that many of the architects he references had with their buildings)
stonecrops's review
5.0
Amazing—clear precursor to the beautiful ideas laid out years later in The Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language.
Takeaway for designers of any type: constructive diagrams as conceptual tools.
Takeaway for designers of any type: constructive diagrams as conceptual tools.
More...