COMMENT:
Thankfully, I am forced consider doing something like this — take an existing home, look beyond the exterior, and make the interior a modern space. However, I ask ‘when to says ‘when?’
Just seeing the home below makes me question the efforts people and architects, are taking to remake existing structures into ‘modern visions’ when the exterior is a different style.
Is this remixing / sampling on an architectural scale? Does it really work? Or are we kidding ourselves…
It makes me wonder if the old adage is true – it is what is on the inside that really counts.
Signed,
Slightly horrified.
from Design Milk by Jaime
In Connecticut you expect to see barns, but not a barn like this. The barn was originally partially destroyed in a fire. The architects rebuilt the barn keeping its architectural integrity outside, but revamping the interior to a modern, free space that includes polished concrete floors and exposed maple woodwork.
http://www.spechtharpman.com
COMMENT: It is hard to applaud work that over runs and refuses to co-exist with its environment. It does not matter how large (e.g. the work below) or small (e.g. the iPhone) the work is, there is or should be a balance between the worldly experience and the products experience.
In the case of the home below…how much home does a few people need? I would be hard pressed to believe there are more than half a dozen people ‘living’ in that thing which dwarfs the river.
from Design Milk by Jaime
The Bedford House is situated on what looks to be a rocky cliff overlooking a beautiful river. To me, it looks entirely too unsafe to live in! However, I’m sure that it’s just fine, and I bet the view is remarkable.
http://www.lynnebreslinarchitects.com
Being someone that started designing user interfaces and interactions in the mid nineties when the work was steeped in physical metaphors, e.g. ‘the desktop’, and misalignment were clear indications of the strength or weakness of the metaphor, I find it interesting that these ‘rules’ are being ‘broken’ with wild abandon. I see user interface visual rendering’s light source that do not adhere to any ‘laws of physics’ I am aware of to date. In addition, I see interactions that can only exist in that would only be allowed in a professional enterprise application where people tens of thousands for a ‘seat.’
With that stated, there are two things that are of interest now in Flickr -
- the ‘Photostream’ and its relationship to the Sets;
- the relationship to the other social site
Photostream and Sets
I am not sure why I would need to refer to my page as a ‘Photostream’ as oppose to something more typical like ‘album’ or ‘collection.’ Moreover, the metaphor / taxonomy does not seem cohesive in its current state – ‘~stream’ and ‘sets.’ Again, if I had to imagine an improvement, it would suggest either ‘rivers’ and ‘streams’ or ‘album’ and ‘set.’
Flickr in the social space
One of the things that is odd to me about the Flickr experience is how it relates to the rest of the social community.
Understand…
