On: Durable Design (2017)

[keyle]

I respectfully disagree. For a design to be timeless, it means that it feels right through the ages. Feeling right implies "good aesthetics".

[wawhal → keyle]

I respectfully disagree. I think most people would be okay with "average aesthetics" as long as the functionality of the product is designed well (flexible batteries in this case)

What looks good to 5/10 people, might not look good to the other 5/10. For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO. But the phone did extraordinarily well because it was a well engineered phone. Another example is this website that you're looking at. I would call this average aesthetics as well.

Of course good aesthetics is an awesome add-on, but it is not fair to disqualify a product based on just aesthetics.

[saagarjha → wawhal]

> For an instance, consider an iPhone 4S. It is a pretty average design "aesthetically" IMO.

I have heard multiple people unironically call it the sexiest phone they’ve ever seen.

[wawhal → saagarjha]

Exactly, "sexiness" is subjective.

[fouc → keyle]

For a design to be timeless, it means that you can send it back in time, and it will feel right for any era that it appears in.

(I'm joking because even so-called timeless designs might look pretty out of place if you send them back far enough)

[blotter_paper → fouc]

I think you'd have to go pretty far back for this cutting board to look out of place: https://www.sevencolonial.com/shop/kitchen-dining/platters/m...