Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6416326" data-attributes="member: 177">It can be helpful.&nbsp; It can be harmful.&nbsp; The effect of labels depends upon context.You are in the context of a message board that has, over the years, seen a great deal of divisiveness.&nbsp; So, keep that in mind.It is only common if we, in fact, agree upon it.&nbsp; Oh, it can be quite useful.&nbsp; Your Star Wars analogy rather proves that.&nbsp; Yes, from the point of view of a literary critic, Star Wars is at best Space Opera, and may well be fantasy.&nbsp; But, if you shelve it with the fantasy movies, the public will, perforce, be confused, and not find it when they are looking for it.&nbsp; This should tell you something about your categorization - it is missing something relevant to the bulk of users!And, if your response is to say, &quot;I don't care what users think!&nbsp; My ideology is more important!&quot;&nbsp; well, then we know where we stand, don't we?Designers are not perfect - sometimes, what they intend to make, and what the effectively make, are different things.&nbsp; What a thing is designed to do is not nearly so important as what is actually accomplishes, and that is generally seen in how people use it.&nbsp; If that lighter, in fact, doesn't light very well, and is rarely used to produce flame, but in practice gets used to open bottles all the time, well, that tells you something important, and you are remiss if you ignore it.The categorization for the sake of having categories is itself useless.&nbsp; There must be a point to sorting things, or the activity is wasted energy.&nbsp; So, I ask again - what is the point of having definitions?&nbsp; What is the purpose of the exercise?&nbsp; What are we trying to gain?&nbsp; Tell us that, first.&nbsp; And no, &quot;a common language we can all understand&quot; isn't sufficient.&nbsp;&nbsp; What is that language to be used to accomplish?&nbsp; Proscriptive definitions are not themselves something we can learn from, except in the sense that if we use them, and find we come to nonsensical results, we know the definitions are flawed.Actually, if people use your lighter more for opening bottles than for lighting fires, that tells you something about your lighter design.&nbsp; The proof, sir, is in the pudding, not on the drawing table.&nbsp; This is something that the folks over at The Forge missed out on - their theories came from their heads, rather than from empiricism, and it shows.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6416326, member: 177"] It can be helpful. It can be harmful. The effect of labels depends upon context. You are in the context of a message board that has, over the years, seen a great deal of divisiveness. So, keep that in mind. It is only common if we, in fact, agree upon it. Oh, it can be quite useful. Your Star Wars analogy rather proves that. Yes, from the point of view of a literary critic, Star Wars is at best Space Opera, and may well be fantasy. But, if you shelve it with the fantasy movies, the public will, perforce, be confused, and not find it when they are looking for it. This should tell you something about your categorization - it is missing something relevant to the bulk of users! And, if your response is to say, "I don't care what users think! My ideology is more important!" well, then we know where we stand, don't we? Designers are not perfect - sometimes, what they intend to make, and what the effectively make, are different things. What a thing is designed to do is not nearly so important as what is actually accomplishes, and that is generally seen in how people use it. If that lighter, in fact, doesn't light very well, and is rarely used to produce flame, but in practice gets used to open bottles all the time, well, that tells you something important, and you are remiss if you ignore it. The categorization for the sake of having categories is itself useless. There must be a point to sorting things, or the activity is wasted energy. So, I ask again - what is the point of having definitions? What is the purpose of the exercise? What are we trying to gain? Tell us that, first. And no, "a common language we can all understand" isn't sufficient. What is that language to be used to accomplish? Proscriptive definitions are not themselves something we can learn from, except in the sense that if we use them, and find we come to nonsensical results, we know the definitions are flawed. Actually, if people use your lighter more for opening bottles than for lighting fires, that tells you something about your lighter design. The proof, sir, is in the pudding, not on the drawing table. This is something that the folks over at The Forge missed out on - their theories came from their heads, rather than from empiricism, and it shows. [/QUOTE]

Verification