Quotes About Functionality

Why shouldn't a car key look like a car?

I am a huge fan of porcelain in kitchens. It's an easy, interesting material.

Knowing how people will use something is essential.

I cut the labels out of my clothes because they scratch. Clothes are just little workhorses, aren't they?

There is no need for ants to have the ability to fly

Poorly written classes equal unhappy end users. That's not a happy equation.

Indeed, if moderate, predictable and patterned, it is stress that makes a system stronger and more functionally capable.

Something that looks like a protocol but does not accomplish a task is not a protocol—it's a waste of time.

Of all of them, I'd choose the Walther PPK 7.65 mm. It only came fourth after the Japanese M-14, the Russian Tokarev and the Sauer M-38. But I like its light trigger pull and the extension spur of the magazine gives a grip that should suit 007. It's a real stopping gun. Of course it's about a .32 calibre as compared with the Beretta's .25, but I wouldn't recommend anything lighter. And you can get ammunition for the Walther anywhere in the world.

Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.

There's no point having something worn on your body - that's a big ask - unless you can give people something they really couldn't get otherwise. It has to be qualitatively better for it to be worn.

When you look at things like Flickr and Youtube, they are specialised blogging systems, so why hasn't blogging encompassed that ease of functionality?

Once I tried to make a standardization of staircases. Probably that is one of the oldest of the standardizations. Of course, we design new staircase steps every day in connection with all our houses, but a standardized step depends on the height of the buildings and on all kinds of things.

The role of designers and product makers is to really become much better editors. What kind of functionality is actually needed - and truly delightful - to consumers? Remove all the extraneous stuff.

Complexity is acceptable as long as it is intelligible and necessary. We want to avoid needless complications.

Who wants a stylus. You have to get em and put em away, and you lose em. Yuck. Nobody wants a stylus.

Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

The same way that mid century modern architecture was in the 50s, I want to be as a human being. New. Different. Challenging the old. Function over frivolity. Clean living. Clean lines.

Customers want new functionality, but they don't want the traditional complexity that has marred products in the past.

I'm trying just to do good clothes, clothes that you need as much as you want.

I had always felt that mittens were a few steps back on the evolutionary scale-- why, I wondered, would we want to make ourselves into a less agile version of lobster.

I justified these pants every weekend with the reinforcing thought that one can never have enough extra pockets, just in case.

We're not in hardware for hardware's sake. We're in hardware to be able to express all our platform and productivity software in a way that's unique.

It is the framework developer's job to ensure that clients can extend the framework to solve the remainder of their problems. It's tempting to try to solve a broad range of problems with a framework. The conflict is that the added functionality makes the framework that much more difficult to learn and use for all clients.