No sign of design article - where has it gone?

It seems to have completely disappeared.

You are correct. Maybe the response was unexpected.

It disappeared from Facebook as well. Hmmm???

Good move.

Because....?

I tried to read it during a long train ride yesterday. The links were still there but the article was missing.

hmmm, because of this ?

The motto was always the same: form follows function. “If you remain true to that motto and respect the DNA of a pilot’s watch, there is very little room for manoeuvre. Any further development of a pilot’s watch calls for a lot of sensitivity,” explains Christian Knoop. So what would be the typical procedure for developing a new design or updating an existing one? Christian Knoop: “We pool our knowledge and expertise, discuss strategy and the project’s viability and then come up with the design.” To achieve this, the designers, case makers, management – with IWC CEO Georges Kern at its head, strap/bracelet specialists and the watchmakers themselves meet up.

I thoroughly enjoyed the article: it was revealing, and showed insight, perhaps not universally-appealing insight. but as a seeker of objective truth, I would always incline to candor -- the design process has always been one of my 'questions for IWC design', as shown here: www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/29885/, fueled further by some insights I obtained during the Schaffhausen tour in January.

in any case, because of how google and the internet works, copies of the article still remain in the world wide web.

Notwithstanding the need for design innovation and to be contemporaneous, I feel sad that the Vintage Collection is no longer part of the 2012/2013 catalogue.

"Design by non-design"? Does this make any sense to you?
The IWC pilot/navigator watches used by the Luftwaffe (B-Uhr) and the RAF (Mark 11) are pure design, where form strictly follows function. No gimmicks. That is what design is.
If these are the watches a child would draw, then a child (still uncorrupted by the lifestyle thing) is a better designer than some so-called designers designing pilot watches today.
On the other hand, and to follow the logic (if we can call it logic) of "design by non-design" concept, there is definitely "design by excessive-design", where gimmickry is added for effect, to impress the impressionable, but with no real purpose, and in detriment of function.

I haven't yet read the article but I suspect that "design by non-design" is a reference to the famous dictum "less is more." I think that makes perfect sense.

Whatever the IWC designers are thinking they should keep thinking it: probably more than any other brand at this point in time, their designs speak to me. Many brands have one or two watches in their collections that appeal to me but IWC has many.

Really? Thanks for the clarification. ;-)

You asked if it made sense...

Apologize for being sardonic. You had not read the article, and I should have taken that into consideration.
We all (should) know that in design less is more. This is particularly true in a traditional pilot's watch, i.e. a pilot's watch should have all the necessary attributes to achieve the task at hand, and none unnecessary. Ergonomics is paramount when designing a cockpit and all the flight tools.
Unfortunately, regarding the pilot's watch line, and other "tool" (lacking a better word) watches, IWC talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.
You may like the new pilot watches, as it is your right. Many people actually do, and that seems to be good for IWC's bottom line, in the short run, but that does not make them "pilot watches", imho.

No worries. I like many of the IWC pilots though my pilot watch is from another brand.

I see your point regarding true pilot's watches. However, today such watches are more a style than functional necessities. As such, brands likely need to make some concessions to the market.

And I apologize if this was covered in the article, I still haven't searched for a cached copy. :)

I agree that IWC should not churn clones of the B-Uhr or the Mark 11, but IWC ought to remain true to their spirit and functionality.
The B-Uhr and Mark 11 designs are not the only possible designs complying with the ergonomic requirements of a traditional pilot's watch. It is the cluttering of the dial with useless data, and the names given to some models, that I object to.
And there could also be chronograph versions of each model, always resisting the temptation of including excessive/useless "flight" information.
IWC can do just about anything it wishes to do in the Portuguese, Portofino and Da Vinci lines, the possibilities are endless, but it ought to treat the Pilot, Aquatimer and Ingenieur lines with the respect they deserve, in view of their heritage, although the Ingenieur also offers many variations, as long as it is a-magnetic and "diamondless".
Just my opinion, which btw I feel I have expressed too many times here. I will try and make this the last.