Making judgements about designs

Once upon a time in an Origamiland far away designs used to be judged on their merits. It it was a good design we knew why and could say so. Similarly if it wasn't we could say why and then try to improve it. But then something changed. The people of Origamiland somehow agreed (though the mechanism by which such agreements occur isn't at all clear to me) that all designs are created equal. All designs are equally good, if not fabulous. But are they?

How do we know if a design is a good design or not? What criteria can we use to make this judgement? What qualities should we look for? Where does excellence in origami design reside?

Here are some of the things I think need to be taken into account. You may wish to add others (or delete some).

Ethics - Issues about techniques other than paperfolding that are used to create the design, materials, starting shape etc

Elegance - Issues relating to the folding sequence (and if modular to the assembly sequence as well)

Difficulty - How easy / hard / forgiving etc is the folding (and if modular, the assembly)

Strength - Is the design robust / able to carry it's own weight?

Finished appearance - Issues of aesthetics (Is it attractive?) and verisimilitude (If it's a cow does it look like a cow?)

Originality - What is it that is new about the way the design is folded (or assembled)?

Added value - Does the design do something except exist? If so how good is it at what it does?

Functionality - If the design has a practical purpose how good is it at meeting that purpose?

Extendability - Does the design lead on to other designs?

Answering these is, of course, not always straightforward, but it seems to me that breaking things down like this helps us understand a design's strengths and weaknesses. It also makes it clear that you cannot judge a design unless and until you have folded it. Final appearance is not everything!

Let's see how one of my all time favourite designs, Paul Jackson's Cube, fares on this analysis. I will score it out of 10 under each heading. My scores are, of course, subjective, though I will give my reasons for the scores as well.

Ethics - 10. Paul Jackson's Cube can be folded from six squares of ordinary paper of virtually any type.

Elegance - 8. An average of 6 for the folding sequence (location creases are required) and 10 for the assembly sequence.

Difficulty - 10. Easy, straightforward and very forgiving. (I rate easy higher than difficult. You may choose to do the opposite!)

Strength - 8. Surprisngly strong given the assembly method (though not, for instance, as strong as the Sonobe Cube).

Finished appearance - 10. Very clean. No creases or edges across the face.

Originality - 10. Completely original when first designed / discovered.

Added value - 0. Hey ... it's just a cube!

Functionality - 2. You can stand things on it.

Extendability - 10. Paul Jackson's Cube leads on to many other designs. See Homage to Paul Jackson's Cube in my recently published book Building with Butterflies. See http://freespace.virgin.net/dave.mitchell/origamiheavenpublications.htm

So ... all in all a very, very good design.

I welcome your thoughts on this.