Regarding the title with "technocrats" reminded me of Bret Victor referring to it as a "designer aristocracy" - http://worrydream.com/#!/DynamicPicturesMotivation (2011 , mentioned later on in the essay)
--
The 2011 Bret Victor essay: "I spent a few years hanging around various UI design groups at Apple, and I met brilliant designers, and these brilliant designers could not make real things. They could only suggest. They would draw mockups in Photoshop, maybe animate them in Keynote, maybe add simple interactivity in Director or Quartz Composer. But the designers could not produce anything that they could ship as-is. Instead, they were dependent on engineers to translate their ideas into lines of text. Even at Apple, a designer aristocracy like no other, there was always a subtle undercurrent of helplessness, and the timidity and hesitation that come from not being self-reliant."
--
The 2022 NYT article "technocrats triumphed at apple": "Mr. Ive’s absence, the designers say that they collaborate more with colleagues in engineering and operations and face more cost pressures than they did previously."
> But the designers could not produce anything that they could ship as-is. Instead, they were dependent on engineers to translate their ideas into lines of text.
Why is this scenario presented as a bad/uncommon/exploitative thing? It is exactly how architects and engineers work on buildings, etc. and is considered a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) mode of working. It's certainly not a characteristic unique to Apple.
Is the way architects work on buildings functional? It appears architects have no influence on most buildings out there in the world, until one day they design a giant multi-billion dollar sports stadium that looks like a body part[0]. There's nothing in the middle, mainly because in the US we essentially banned building anything interesting around 1970.
"A Pattern Language" was supposed to be about designing buildings that the inhabitants could then adapt for their own purposes, but it's unclear if this actually ever happens.
This is actually a thing in design, and it's inexplicable. Too many designers think like architects. They design the case to look good, and aren't interested in the much more demanding process of productising an item so it looks good and isn't feature constrained.
A lot of design is pure fantasy. There were some renderings of Mars habitats being sent around a year or two ago, and they had wood panelling - pretty for sure, but not exactly easy to find on Mars in industrial quantities.
If you’re living on Mars in the first place, you’re going to need to grow some plants just to have food. I don’t think it’s inconceivable to also grow some bamboo.
Exactly the same complaint could be made about the civil and structural engineers that this website so idolizes, right? All they can personally make are plans.
The plans produced by the electrical and civil engineers I work with are a set of instructions for electricians and construction workers to follow that results in a power plant. I have not worked with an architect but I don’t think their drawings are ready for trades.
--
The 2011 Bret Victor essay: "I spent a few years hanging around various UI design groups at Apple, and I met brilliant designers, and these brilliant designers could not make real things. They could only suggest. They would draw mockups in Photoshop, maybe animate them in Keynote, maybe add simple interactivity in Director or Quartz Composer. But the designers could not produce anything that they could ship as-is. Instead, they were dependent on engineers to translate their ideas into lines of text. Even at Apple, a designer aristocracy like no other, there was always a subtle undercurrent of helplessness, and the timidity and hesitation that come from not being self-reliant."
--
The 2022 NYT article "technocrats triumphed at apple": "Mr. Ive’s absence, the designers say that they collaborate more with colleagues in engineering and operations and face more cost pressures than they did previously."