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

NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

nodesign.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#81

Post by gdubs »

the_arun wrote: post #72
gdubs wrote: post #49

If I could give one piece of advice for technical developers it’s that design isn’t all about the way it looks, it’s about the way it works. To expand on that, it’s how the pieces fit together within your set of constraints. There’s a LOT in common with what makes code beautiful or not. You get to the essential; nothing more, nothing less. This doesn’t mean “minimalist” , per se — just be wary of ornamentation that d…

You mean the User Experience (UX) is more important than User Interface (UI)?

No, that's not what I mean at all.

What I'm saying is that beauty in design doesn't come from slapping a facade onto something. It comes from a harmonious relationship between all the elements, adding up to something that solves the particular 'problem' of that site.

UI is a specialization within UX, the way databases are a specialization within Computer Science. CS deals more broadly in the constraints of memory, time, resources, etc. Databases deal with the same things, but through a specific lens.

UX deals with a set of constraints as well. The business needs, the user needs, etc. UI deals with a narrower subset of those constraints.

The fonts you choose, the colors you choose, the information density – if these are intentional choices based on your particular set of constraints, you'll end up with something elegant. That elegance is what makes something feel right.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#82

Post by gdubs »

ryanSrich wrote: post #71
gdubs wrote: post #49

If I could give one piece of advice for technical developers it’s that design isn’t all about the way it looks, it’s about the way it works. To expand on that, it’s how the pieces fit together within your set of constraints. There’s a LOT in common with what makes code beautiful or not. You get to the essential; nothing more, nothing less. This doesn’t mean “minimalist” , per se — just be wary of ornamentation that d…

> "way it looks, it’s about the way it works" Dangerous to separate these. Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. Of course, aesthetics are subjective, so I'm speaking generally here. My philosophy for design is to always, without exception, strive for a good looking and functioning site. You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. Conversely you can often find sites that look great but are absol…

Our points are not at odds. Something 'brutalist' might be very fitting in certain contexts. In most scenarios, creating something that's 'easy on the eyes' is a very important constraint of the design. My main point is that beauty in design emerges from a graceful balancing act between all of the conflicting constraints on a project. It rarely emerges by enforcing a facade on top of something.

The best Visual Designers have superb pattern-recognition skills for applying principles they've become familiar with in their education and professional work. They can quickly recognize a certain type of problem, and call on their depth of experience to apply a solution. But even the best can slip into habit of using well-worn tricks in situations where perhaps a different approach would be more fitting.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#83

Post by thestepafter »

schwartzworld wrote: post #52
onion2k wrote: post #10

Alternatively, just work with a designer. There are thousands of them out there who want to build tech stuff but don't have the skills. They want developers to collaborate with. Reach out to some on social media and you might be surprised how receptive they are. You don't have to do everything on your own, and you definitely shouldn't compromise on design if you want your project to succeed.

I think most of these resources are for devs who just need something to look good enough. if I'm building a UI for a small project, or even something for my own use, I'm not going to spend money on a designer. I just want a website to tell me two fonts that look nice together.

Like this?

https://fontpair.co/

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#84

Post by dgb23 »

gdubs wrote: post #49

If I could give one piece of advice for technical developers it’s that design isn’t all about the way it looks, it’s about the way it works. To expand on that, it’s how the pieces fit together within your set of constraints. There’s a LOT in common with what makes code beautiful or not. You get to the essential; nothing more, nothing less. This doesn’t mean “minimalist” , per se — just be wary of ornamentation that d…

I agree! You can find aesthetics, design and UX all the way down to programming languages.

In fact a UI is a programming language, just a visual, and usually very constrained one (for better or worse).

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#85

Post by systemvoltage »

nick-garfield wrote: post #30

I've got to recommend refactoringui.com. They sell a (rather expensive) book on web/mobile app design that explains how to build your design system and use it to create great looking apps. They cover all the bases you would expect like fonts, line-heights, colors, shadows, borders, sizing, working with images, visual hierarchy, using white space, etc. etc. I'm a developer by trade and I work primarily with one other…

I don't know. Just looking at one of the things that they've posted: https://twitter.com/steveschoger/status/981606881255976961

> Overlapping images is a great way to add depth to an interface and make it look more “designed”.

I don't know if this is sarcasm. No one is asking why do we need to add "depth"? What problem is "depth" of overlapping icons solving?

I would stay away from this.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#87

Post by fxtentacle »

I see plenty of websites claiming to redistribute CC0 images. That can be a legal liability.

I mean there's nothing to stop someone from downloading photos from Flickr and uploading them in their own name to one of those CC0 websites, especially because the latter will usually do no contributor verification at all. But no matter what the website says, you - the person using the image - will be held legally responsible in case it was wrongly promoted as CC0.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#88

Post by Ayraa »

One of the most useful design-related tools I've found is this color picker which generates complimentary colors for you based on model of your choice (triadic, analogous, etc.):

https://www.sessions.edu/color-calculator/

I always struggled with picking complimentary colors and found this worked a lot better than most of the pre-defined color palette suggestions out there.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#89

Post by CharlesW »

ryanSrich wrote: post #71
gdubs wrote: post #49

If I could give one piece of advice for technical developers it’s that design isn’t all about the way it looks, it’s about the way it works. To expand on that, it’s how the pieces fit together within your set of constraints. There’s a LOT in common with what makes code beautiful or not. You get to the essential; nothing more, nothing less. This doesn’t mean “minimalist” , per se — just be wary of ornamentation that d…

> "way it looks, it’s about the way it works" Dangerous to separate these. Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. Of course, aesthetics are subjective, so I'm speaking generally here. My philosophy for design is to always, without exception, strive for a good looking and functioning site. You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. Conversely you can often find sites that look great but are absol…

> Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. […] You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit.

There are many sites that work well even though they look like shit. Craigslist is a good example.

Post reply on HN