A while back, I came across a little paper by Richard Gabriel, titled The Rise of "Worse is Better." The context of this paper is software (Lisp specifically), but I think it applies to all sorts of design work. Gabriel's philosophy is very much in line with my own imperfectionism, and his paper offers the following insights, which I offer for your consideration:
Simplicity is the most important consideration in design.
It is slightly better to be simple than correct.
...it is better to drop those parts of the design that deal with less common circumstances than to introduce either implementation complexity or inconsistency.
Completeness can be sacrified in favor of any other quality. In fact, completeness must be sacrified whenever implementation simplicity is jeopardized.
The worse-is-better philosophy means that implementation simplicity has highest priority...
... worse-is-better software first will gain acceptance, second will condition its users to expect less, and third will be improved to a point that is almost the right thing.
... it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half ofthe right thing available so that is spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing.
Any reaction to these ideas?