Designers design for usability. The idea that design is about "making things pretty" is on par with the idea that software development is about making computers crunch numbers.

Not sure I agree with that. The trashcan MacPro was definitely not useable as far as what Pro Mac users wanted/needed. That was definitely designed for the designer's sake totally misunderstanding the user's needs.

So it was just bad design.

So it was poorly designed.

Not sure how that has anything to do with the parent's argument.

>Designers design for usability.

It wasn't usable for the majority of the market. Even in the infamous mea culpa Apple made about it, they admitted they designed themselves into a corner. It was designed so poorly, they had to take years to undo it after admitting it needed to be done.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that usability is part of design, not something separable from it.

GP was complaining about the common and incorrect trope that design is limited to aesthetics.

I think he was complaining that Apple was the one that had lost the plot and had started separating the two, not that they should be.

I think it's pretty much impossible to determine apple's intent here, for the obvious reasons.

So fundamentally correct?

> Designers design for usability.

In theory.

In practice, designers design for two things: market demand, and personal predilection.

So like everyone who does any job, sure.

Not in every job your personal predilection is part of your literal resume.

Design isn’t just about how something looks, but also how it behaves

Bam! Jobs was the counter weight in that relationship.