« Ted Stevens and the art of the ramble | Main | Balls, cheekiness, cogs, independence, travel, & high boots »

July 29, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b64669e200d83464109a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A jogging reminder on the importance of simplicity:

Comments

Thinker

Use Adidas. I have done so for several years now and I had no problem with their shoes at all.

John Jantsch

Thanks for the trip down memory lane - I wore out a couple pairs of the Waffels when I thought I was bound to be the next Pre!

Caleb Elston

Dead on. I think that most companies feel the need to add, to "improve" something with more stuff, it gives the marketers something to sell. However we know that this approach does not always work, nor does it lend the best performance. Take for example performance vehicles; the fewer moving parts, the more compact the pieces, the smoother less adorned body, lends to the best performance. The clarity of purpose which comes from simplicity should be enough.

Corto

Oh c'mon. All this rant 'bout poor design and you're not even taking them back?
You bought not only overpriced, but also overdesigned pair of shoes...not to mention the "evil" of the brand.
Try to be better consumer next time... ;-)

safe running!

Jeff Bailey

The Oregon... it does bring back memories on miles and miles of running during cross country practice. How about the Nike Elite? Do any of you guys remember those? They were much easier on the legs and feet. Of course, if you were running golf courses, the Oregon was great!

Looks like superglue may become a manditory running accessory;)

Diego

Great post! The quote from Maeda is a great way to start a story about your shoe adventure. Thanks.

CM Harrington

The Jackson? You're kidding! That typewriter binds up if you try to type more than 20WPM (although it binds in a very different way than a "normal" manual typewriter). Sure, it's unique in its scissors-like striking action, but for someone used to typing around 80WPM, it simply won't do.

As for your trainers, sorry you suffered a blowout. I do agree, just because it's modern, doesn't make it superior. Often, the modern object is made to poorer standards, as the need to keep margins high trumps build quality. Look at HP printers for an example.

geraud servin

totally true also for web sites/information systems. make it simple not only on the design but also the architecture/database.

now I suspect that IT pro unconsciously complicate things to ensure their long-term survival i.e. they're the only one to understand the system and you'll have to rely on them in the future for maintaining/upgrading. thus I spend most of time simplifying/trimming/cutting. why make it complicated?

Jimbo

Forrest Gump ran for like 4 years in his Nike Cortez!! That was a simple man!

It seems that some things—e.g. Nike Shox, websites, young Hollywood starlets—are designed superficially, not with the intent of being explored and used in-depth, but for show and initial attraction. This is the complicated question of the purposes of design, visual attraction AND usability... But, that's for another post I imagine.

Devdas

Erm, IT pros make complicated solutions because the requirements are complicated. Any graphical user interfaces has a humongous number of components. Adding in availability to the mix adds complexity. Prettiness adds complexity.

A lot of things can be simplified. However, if the function is complex, it results in a complex solution.

A lot of clueless people do make things unnecessarily complicated, and then they end up (or should end up) on http://thedailywtf.com/ .

After all, software is just implemented mathematics and more of an art than engineering.

David Armano

I REALLY like this blog and great post here. Are you familiar with the three pillars of product design? (Useful, Useable, Desirable)?

When a product scores exceedingly high points in all three areas, it tends to reach the coveted "product lust" status. Though it's more comman for some products to excel in one or two areas over the other.

But whether it's presentations, digital experiences or products, it's a worth goal to shoot for all three.

Rick

I like those shoes ;)

rick
--
http://rwez.blogspot.com/

andrea

I would recommend New Balance... (I use 1060)
this post is really good as it points out how the need of somthing new can lead to a not-so-well-thought-and-executed product.
anyway I don't think it is only a matter of "how many parts", of course if something is not in it will never break, but is something is in for a reason it is Ok it is in.
the point is: why that last absorber is in the shoe? IMHO it is there not for a "functional function" but just because it is cool and it looks good, just like some air intake leading air nowhere on some motorcycles and/or cars (I remember a Yamaha of some yrs ago with a "FAI System" acronym on its body, well... FAI was an acronym of "Fresh Air Intake"...)

Stan

I remember being at DesignMuseum in London when they had a small exhibition about Nike (must've been around 2001) and quite a big part of that exhibiton belonged to the shox' evolution. afair they experimented for about 14 or 15 years to get that system work, but what's the result? back to drawing boards!

btw this shoe is quite ugly (when you said, you look for a good looking running shoe, then why the "hetero-pumps"?)

Jason

You would do well to read this article, very detailed exploration of athletic footware and running injuries.

http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html#more

Matt A

I'll have to watch my Nike Shox pair then.. I've got an early pair (similar to your failed shoes, with the laminated/two part rear shock column)and I'd always wondered what was holding the lamination together.. Now I know it is glued & could fail, I just use them for walking. Interestingly, Nike has created all newer versions of the Shox shoe with a different rear shock column now- the new pair of Shox I've just bought has a one-piece rear column, more like the other 3 columns on the base of the heel. I guess this is to prevent the glue from delaminating.
I found this site by typing in "BRS 1000 failure" in google by the way :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

Get the books

TEDx Talks



Subscribe

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    .