Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
In article <7c7ihq$m1s$1@east43.supernews.com>, "Steve"
<redled@peakaccess.net> wrote:
> Does anyone else find the unnecessary 'curviness' of the 89 case repulsive?
> This applies to all the newer TI calcs. What is wrong with straight lines? I
> especially dont' like the curved bottom. If you want to prop the 89 up,
> there's no flat surface to rest on. And why? And how about the meaningless
> dip in the display area below the menu keys? What is that for? And why have
> that whole dark area around the display? To show that the display is
> different from the rest of the calc? We can see that already, don't need it
> shoved down our throats.The 81-82-85 cases were simpler, less distracting.
> So they wanted to change something for the new series, but not all change is
> good. There are three principles at work : creation, preservation, and
> destruction. change exists in the first and the last, but often change for
> the sake of change is just destruction. It is only controlled, purposeful
> change that gives rise to creation. And once something is created, if it's
> good you don't change it, you preserve it. So in my opinion if something is
> to be changed it must have a PURPOSE. Let me state it this way:
>
> 1. Change for the sake of change = destruction.
>
> 2. Change with purpose and utility = creation.
>
> That is, each change must justify itself by providing something other than
> itself alone. If this is done then by definition creation has taken place.
> If however the change provides nothing but the change itself, then by
> definition the only thing that has happened is the destruction of that which
> was changed.
That is why I like the design of the TI-85.
References: