O Seth Godin publicou recentemente um post divagando sobre a palavra arquitetar:
“I think architecting something is different from designing it. I hope you can forgive me but I think it’s a more precise way to express this idea.
Design carries a lot of baggage related to aesthetics. We say something is well-designed if it looks good. There are great designs that don’t look good, certainly, but it’s really easy to get caught up in a bauhaus, white space, font-driven, Ideo-envy way of thinking about design.
So I reserve “architect” to describe the intentional arrangement of design elements to get a certain result.
More interesting, you can architect a business model or a pricing structure to make it far more effective at generating the behavior you’re looking for. Most broken websites aren’t broken because they violate common laws of good design. They’re broken because their architecture is all wrong. There’s no strategy in place.
Architecture, for me anyway, involves intention, game theory, systems thinking and relentless testing and improvement. Fine with me if you want to call it design, just don’t forget to do it.”
A coisa está tomando volume e virou uma discussão legal no site da Interact Design Association:
http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=31882
Me lembra a velha ladainha sobre traduzir “design” como “projeto” ao invés de “desenho”.
Quanto mais o mundo gira mais as coisas voltam aos mesmos lugares!
.
