Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dribbblisation of Design

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#11

Post by dunkelheit »

petewailes wrote: post #7
dunkelheit wrote: post #4

My main grievance with modern designs is low information density. Fonts are getting bigger and lots of whitespace is added between blocks. This works great for articles (as an example, medium articles look gorgeous and are a joy to read) but just about anything else is less usable when fewer bits of actual information are on the screen. Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misg…

This is exactly the point. Your problem isn't the fonts or spacing, but the focus on prettiness to the detriment of usefulness. There is always a balance between the two. There's room between the pain that is design without consideration of the information and the user, and information accessibility with no consideration for visual aesthetic.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As an example of what I am talking about - one of the internal apps at my workplace recently got a visual overhaul. The functionality is exactly the same. The previous version also had a designer working on it and he too tried to make the thing beautiful (according to what was fashionable then). But because the new version is made according to the current fashion so much less information fits on the screen. I suspect the same thing will happen if someone tries to fit the application into current UX paradigm of dumbing down the interaction.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#12

Post by paulojreis »

dunkelheit wrote: post #10
tatx wrote: post #6

Look at it from the other side. If a designer were to suggest some of the more fundamental changes to how your product should work, would you genuinely listen to their opinions and suggestions, or are these critical decisions being taken by someone higher up in management? Designers are often pushed into the rear end of the process in every sort of consumer product development (including software development). It is…

Proposing fundamental product changes takes solid grasp of what is called "product architecture" in the article, i.e. precise understanding of the concepts involved and the intricacies of their interaction. That means becoming a domain expert, knowing how to work with analytics and maybe even having a basic understanding of backend architecture. Most of the designers I have worked with (admittedly a very small sample…

> Proposing fundamental product changes takes solid grasp of what is called "product architecture" in the article, i.e. precise understanding of the concepts involved and the intricacies of their interaction.

That's exactly the point. Assuming your product will be used by humans, a designer (a real designer; not a dribbbler pixel-pusher) is way better equipped - in terms of methods for understanding users and context - than a engineer or a manager.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#13

Post by paulojreis »

petewailes wrote: post #3

Potentially contentious viewpoints ahead... I don't think these are the roles of a designer. But to explain why, I need to unpack some context first. I've spent most of my career at the interface between marketing, programming and design. Marketers are increasingly having similar discussions about how they need to be more involved in everything to make sure a good job is done. Things that would traditionally be seen…

> I think the problem is that it's just very hard now to set a boundary on where one thing ends and another begins. Application architecture is in the realms of development, answering problems defined by product people, made beautiful and usable by designers.

I think you have a misconception here. A designer is not a decorator. Making it usable (and beautiful, as you call it) is way below conceiving the product, in a true designer perspective. Software people don't like to admit it, but designers are much more prepared and educated to conceive a product for humans than engineers or managers.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#14

Post by petewailes »

dunkelheit wrote: post #11
petewailes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the point. Your problem isn't the fonts or spacing, but the focus on prettiness to the detriment of usefulness. There is always a balance between the two. There's room between the pain that is design without consideration of the information and the user, and information accessibility with no consideration for visual aesthetic.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As an example of what I am talking about - one of the internal apps at my workplace recently got a visual overhaul. The functionality is exactly the same. The previous version also had a designer working on it and he too tried to make the thing beautiful (according to what was fashionable then). But because the new version is made according to the current fashion so m…

Then the designer hasn't done his/her job. It should start with an understanding of what the user should be able to do. The story of the user interaction for every screen is vital. Without it, you end up with what you've described - something that may well be beautiful, but is deeply annoying to use.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#15

Post by prawn »

dunkelheit wrote: post #4

My main grievance with modern designs is low information density. Fonts are getting bigger and lots of whitespace is added between blocks. This works great for articles (as an example, medium articles look gorgeous and are a joy to read) but just about anything else is less usable when fewer bits of actual information are on the screen. Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misg…

There are already countless weather apps, so people look to differentiate with variants that play on simplicity (rain being one example) or particular angles (one delivers weather with a humorous bent).

App developers will create whatever they think might stick. Further, if there were not merit in simplicity, such apps wouldn't be successful.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#16

Post by paulojreis »

dunkelheit wrote: post #4

My main grievance with modern designs is low information density. Fonts are getting bigger and lots of whitespace is added between blocks. This works great for articles (as an example, medium articles look gorgeous and are a joy to read) but just about anything else is less usable when fewer bits of actual information are on the screen. Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misg…

> Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misguided thinking that the designer knows my problems better than myself.

It's not that the UX guy knows it better than yourself, but he strives to be able understand it and then to state it more clearly, in an actionable manner. I don't know the call-center operator problems better than he does, but I was able to identify the pain-points and improvements more clearly. While the user will know the problem way better than I do, I can't expect him to systematize and conceive solutions, as well as ways of measuring them.

That's actually what most UX methods tend to to, nowadays. Instead of asking the users, the UX guy will observe (e.g. do job-shadowing).

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#17

Post by petewailes »

paulojreis wrote: post #13
petewailes wrote: post #3

Potentially contentious viewpoints ahead... I don't think these are the roles of a designer. But to explain why, I need to unpack some context first. I've spent most of my career at the interface between marketing, programming and design. Marketers are increasingly having similar discussions about how they need to be more involved in everything to make sure a good job is done. Things that would traditionally be seen…

> I think the problem is that it's just very hard now to set a boundary on where one thing ends and another begins. Application architecture is in the realms of development, answering problems defined by product people, made beautiful and usable by designers. I think you have a misconception here. A designer is not a decorator. Making it usable (and beautiful , as you call it) is way below conceiving the product, in…

I agree completely. That's where the fuzziness comes in. How something works is part of the design. It's also part of the development. It's also part of strategic business decisions (in scoping especially so). I'd put the user story and experience work more in design and product camps than in development. But the architecture for translating that into something that's interacted with is then dev or engineering, which also has overlap into design and finance and other areas. The output of that then leeches into design and business analytics and finance and so on.

My contention isn't that design is relegated purely to making stuff pretty, but rather that, just as design is more than that, so is dev and so is business strategy and everything else. It's hard (and indeed counter-productive) to compartmentalise any specific discipline.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#18

Post by tmlee »

dunkelheit wrote: post #10
tatx wrote: post #6

Look at it from the other side. If a designer were to suggest some of the more fundamental changes to how your product should work, would you genuinely listen to their opinions and suggestions, or are these critical decisions being taken by someone higher up in management? Designers are often pushed into the rear end of the process in every sort of consumer product development (including software development). It is…

Proposing fundamental product changes takes solid grasp of what is called "product architecture" in the article, i.e. precise understanding of the concepts involved and the intricacies of their interaction. That means becoming a domain expert, knowing how to work with analytics and maybe even having a basic understanding of backend architecture. Most of the designers I have worked with (admittedly a very small sample…

I would agree. It gets difficult sometimes to implement a design from a beautiful looking mockup. Mainly because the design does not take into account most of the software use-cases. Then we go back to the drawing board again.

Which is sort of why I think designer who can implement design (in HTML/CSS/JS or iOS/Android) is ideal, as they are much more likely to have that sort of "product architecture" thought process; and being as closed as possible to the code which means it becomes easier to adapt the design.

Personally like Ryan Singer's approach to designing as he jumps back and fourth between HTML and Photoshop (https://vimeo.com/16814487), the design gets much closer to reality.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#19

Post by karmelapple »

petewailes wrote: post #14
dunkelheit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As an example of what I am talking about - one of the internal apps at my workplace recently got a visual overhaul. The functionality is exactly the same. The previous version also had a designer working on it and he too tried to make the thing beautiful (according to what was fashionable then). But because the new version is made according to the current fashion so m…

Then the designer hasn't done his/her job. It should start with an understanding of what the user should be able to do. The story of the user interaction for every screen is vital. Without it, you end up with what you've described - something that may well be beautiful, but is deeply annoying to use.

And although the design doesn't display as much information, what are the needs for thi tool? Could some of the previously displayed information simply not truly be useful anymore? Was it adding visual noise and distracting from the main purpose of the visualization?

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#20

Post by cousin_it »

dunkelheit wrote: post #4

My main grievance with modern designs is low information density. Fonts are getting bigger and lots of whitespace is added between blocks. This works great for articles (as an example, medium articles look gorgeous and are a joy to read) but just about anything else is less usable when fewer bits of actual information are on the screen. Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misg…

Yeah, that's a big problem. I've worked with many UX people over the years, implementing their strongly held ideas and watching the metrics of user behavior afterward. My reluctant and painful conclusion is that they don't really understand users, it's all self deception. Though they do have good visual design skills.

Maybe the UX designer's job should include more statistics and analysis? It's not enough to draw mocks for engineers and do a usability test now and then.

Post reply on HN