time I've been really concerned with the concept of form vs.. content. I have a left brain developed based on studying engineering at ICAI. Only from the late twenties, they fired me (imagine that hormonally) the need to offset this imbalance practicing noble arts such as music and poetry.
The left brain (which regulates the rational component) says that the content is what matters, and that form is for artists. The right side, I guess that says that the forms are as necessary or more than a pure concept.
Anyway, this whole debate has been affected by the foul growth of information available in the world (not just online, but especially with the advent of the internet). And hence the thesis of my reflection in fernandopolo.com , following the debate on Death Web, we have worked so "concerned" this week.
[...] if important information, content, data, whatever, is to be "assimilated" (otherwise it is as if there were) we must bear in mind that assimilation is a matter of "understanding, care and observation." The more info, less time to process info. The less time to assimilate info, more importantly the way the info is presented, the time to be digested.
After a project in which we took 5 people, plus 5 other customer, for 8 weeks, the "go, no go" was resolved in a 1 hour presentation, who really had the ability to "investment ". It is so vital to what was presented (the forms, aesthetics of presentation, visual metaphors, graphics), and the ideas that the document described.
That's it. Read
Tufte, Tufte, Tufte in fernandopolo.com
