consistency means developing a convention and then following it. while this is mostly a good idea, consistency can defy logic. (to wit: italian bureaucracy, for those of you who know it). sure — you may be following the rule, you may follow it to the end, but it may not lead to the best solution.
coherence means that the whole sticks together. when thinking of things like content, it means applying a contistent context to the problem you’re trying to solve, the scheme you’re trying to create, the approach you’re trying to take. it may mean deviating from absolute consistency, with the goal of making greater sense of the whole.
“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? …
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. ”
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self Reliance”
Which is to say, I value neither, if we are talking about valuing them as ideals apart from a moment. A great designer knows when to be consistent, and when to be inconsitent ( a global navigation that goes away in the checkout process) and when to be coherent, and when to be nonsensical to capture attention or amuse.
What I value is a good mind fully engaged with a design problem; I value understanding and context and intuition and skill.
Isn’t the goal of both to minimise the set of things that need to be grasped by someone – whether it’s labels on buttons, or underlying concepts, principles, or beliefs (even if these are not explicit)?
Some things are just different though, and trying to make them the same by hammering them with Consistency is just violence.
i’m with molly on this because consistency may tend toward the boring and contrived, whereas coherency may bind or intertwine. but then again, fabio brings in something really nice and christina offers the ultimate in pragmatism…
Petafloptimism 
Hmmm.
I’ll take multiplicity.
Calvino docet. 😉
coherence is what i value more.
consistency means developing a convention and then following it. while this is mostly a good idea, consistency can defy logic. (to wit: italian bureaucracy, for those of you who know it). sure — you may be following the rule, you may follow it to the end, but it may not lead to the best solution.
coherence means that the whole sticks together. when thinking of things like content, it means applying a contistent context to the problem you’re trying to solve, the scheme you’re trying to create, the approach you’re trying to take. it may mean deviating from absolute consistency, with the goal of making greater sense of the whole.
“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? …
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. ”
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self Reliance”
Which is to say, I value neither, if we are talking about valuing them as ideals apart from a moment. A great designer knows when to be consistent, and when to be inconsitent ( a global navigation that goes away in the checkout process) and when to be coherent, and when to be nonsensical to capture attention or amuse.
What I value is a good mind fully engaged with a design problem; I value understanding and context and intuition and skill.
I’m just happy being regular most days…
Isn’t the goal of both to minimise the set of things that need to be grasped by someone – whether it’s labels on buttons, or underlying concepts, principles, or beliefs (even if these are not explicit)?
Some things are just different though, and trying to make them the same by hammering them with Consistency is just violence.
i’m with molly on this because consistency may tend toward the boring and contrived, whereas coherency may bind or intertwine. but then again, fabio brings in something really nice and christina offers the ultimate in pragmatism…
Both.
http://pc171115.pc.waseda.ac.jp/ccdl/cl_edinburgh2/6-Handout.pdf
thought you’d appreciate this Matt!
How about “conherence” and “cohistency”?