One thing that has become very clear to me is that how we code to interface with data has patterns. They are complex. They have patterns based on broad use, and patterns tailored to specific use, and patterns to signal and help, and design patterns, all of which can be on or off; and then the object has data pipelined in, sometimes with additional algorithms.
It's the thread through this entire site, but just to be unequivocal: Humanity rocks. Yeah, we've got our problem children (some of them closer to centenarian than baby; age is a state of mind!). But overall, I like us. The problem children are the exception, not
I consider design architecture to be the suite of ready-set tools a designer can turn to in order to work in brand. To get the full spectrum of what's being designed, it takes multiple softwares with different focal points. Design systems and riffpoints architecture are hamstrung by design
Acknowledging that cognition can be built to be steeped deeply in binaries helps me understand why our attempts to bridge with empathy fails. They literally cannot see other options. If we want something different, we have to shut down their access to think they can make decisions for us. This
Current information technology hardware functions on a binary substrate of ones and zeros translated to electric gates (highly simplified!!), with lots of programming layers between that substrate and the code. That code controlling the hardware is something most of us don't understand. Over that, we're layering