Live data from Hacker News

The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

applypixels.com

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#181
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Material UI and iOS both look more similar than ever. I'm not sure if aesthetic would be the reason to go for an iPhone

It was a lot of things around that release. The look, the feel of the "cards" everywhere, the deprecation of power-user features in the name of security (like full SD card read/write access for apps). Totally the right trade for a dumbed-down-but-safe mass-market OS, but that's not why I liked Android. When presented a wannabe iPhone I prefer the real thing :p

I didn't feel that way then but lately I actually felt the same :)

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember seeing that implemented somewhere, but I cant find it. Maybe someone can help...

Some pre-7 versions of iOS would adjust the sheen on certain graphics (like one of the Settings icons, if memory serves) based on the gyroscope, so as you rotated the device the specular highlights would appear to move. Not exactly the same, but similar spirit.

Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIUMgiQ7rQs

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#183
post #136
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You think my uncle is going to do better? Yes he will, because he has to only care about what he needs, and he is the best judge of that.

Why do you suppose he is the best judge of that? Surely that’s not the case for other professions that offer products or services, like medicine, airplane piloting, etc.

Again, please do not compare oranges and apples. This is not about the uncle in question creating a professional product for others, it is about him arranging UI elements in the way he deems fit. A better (although still imperfect) comparison is you cooking your own lunch.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designer rant. I've been a computer user for 35 years, developer for 25 years (10 full-time professionally), *nix user for 20 years, and am currently in a degree program as a designer, and I've got to say that I disagree entirely. I think you're conflating your personal taste with functional design, and then again conflating functional design with styling and decoration. Interface design principles— as a subset of in…

It wouldn't surprise me if the periodic stylistic changes are analogous to fashion industry periodic makeovers, apparently a tool to keep users engaged and purchasing gadgets (plus a lot of sociological reasons) -- not necessarily for superiority to what came before in any absolute sense.

I bet every serious design change aims to alleviate some of the pains that the previous design was producing. I bet it's always an honest "let's make it right this time" attempt.

But every new design also contains certain compromises, and also is found to has pain points that have not been anticipated.

So the cycle continues.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#185
I like discoverability and generally appreciate Apple's unified visual design for macOS 11 and iOS 14.

However, I will miss the distinct outline shapes and silhouettes which have made macOS icons easy to distinguish from each other since the original Mac (really earlier than that, going back to the Lisa and Xerox Alto.) Now everything's going to be an iPhone home-screen RoundRect.

Consider these distinctive silhouettes of Super Smash Bros. fighters: https://www.sporcle.com/games/skuban/super-smash-bros-charac...

Or the silhouettes from Apple's iconic iPod ads: https://www.pophistorydig.com/topics/ipod-silhouettes-2000-2...

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've hit the nail perfectly with most of those points. For all its faults, the older styles of UI and icons made better use of screen space and conveyed much more information to the user. That should always have priority over a "designer" or "artist" imposing a "style" on the system. Any UI is meant to facilitate work, not create work in trying to understand whatever new trend. It's quite an uphill struggle, but I'…

Designer rant. I've been a computer user for 35 years, developer for 25 years (10 full-time professionally), *nix user for 20 years, and am currently in a degree program as a designer, and I've got to say that I disagree entirely. I think you're conflating your personal taste with functional design, and then again conflating functional design with styling and decoration. Interface design principles— as a subset of in…

>Most users simply don't share your tolerance (preference?) for visually crowded interfaces that aim to cram as many elements on a screen as you can possibly fit with little editing or regard for what users actually 'need' on a screen for a given task.

I don't think anyone has a preference for needlessly crammed UIs. But the question is what you prioritise when a task really does benefit from seeing a lot of information at a glance.

There's an easy choice. There's a hard choice. And there's an ugly choice.

The easy choice is to "clean up" the interface and just remove stuff even if it makes the interface less useful. Apparently, that's a popular choice with designers. It can often be justified by pointing to "most users", because that creates a statistical bias toward less demanding requirements.

The hard (and expensive) choice is to think deeply about data visualisation, gain a detailed understanding of the task at hand to the point where the designer has to become a user themselves, and communicate with the most demanding users until you get something functional and not crammed or until you learn what customisation options are needed.

When the hard choice fails or isn't an option for economic reasons, that's when only ugly choices remain, and that's when I would rather have a developer who is intimately familiar with the task come up with a UI that is at least fit for purpose.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your edit shows that your original post was as ill-meaning and vague as they thought, which is why it was downvoted.

The original comment was just the first sentence, I felt like it spoke for itself but apparently the hive was of a different opinion. I utterly hate this place it's like a stalinist gulag.

It's possible your first sentence was not sarcastic or insulting, but it kind of came off that way. Then your edit made it clear you were throwing shade at the person for having their rant in their head.

Dude, several people gave you feedback on why you got downvoted. I have now spent... at least four minutes of my life dedicated to helping an internet stranger understand why their comment seemed rash. And you're complaining about "Stalinist Gulag"? Get over yourself, stop being melodramatic, or go read about the torture and starvation of millions of people while you sit drinking tea and typing out armchair philosophy on your mechanical keyboard.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#188
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't surprise me if the periodic stylistic changes are analogous to fashion industry periodic makeovers, apparently a tool to keep users engaged and purchasing gadgets (plus a lot of sociological reasons) -- not necessarily for superiority to what came before in any absolute sense.

I bet every serious design change aims to alleviate some of the pains that the previous design was producing. I bet it's always an honest "let's make it right this time" attempt. But every new design also contains certain compromises, and also is found to has pain points that have not been anticipated. So the cycle continues.

On the level of the designers I agree -- each designer is without doubt doing what he thinks is best, but on the larger scale that prompts redesign in the first place, I'm skeptical.

For example, would it be acceptable/comfortable for the designer to conclude "Everything is fine as is, we've done a pretty good job last time around, let's ship it like it is." ? If not that reflects a systemic bias to introduce changes in the name of changing.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designer rant. I've been a computer user for 35 years, developer for 25 years (10 full-time professionally), *nix user for 20 years, and am currently in a degree program as a designer, and I've got to say that I disagree entirely. I think you're conflating your personal taste with functional design, and then again conflating functional design with styling and decoration. Interface design principles— as a subset of in…

>Most users simply don't share your tolerance (preference?) for visually crowded interfaces that aim to cram as many elements on a screen as you can possibly fit with little editing or regard for what users actually 'need' on a screen for a given task. I don't think anyone has a preference for needlessly crammed UIs. But the question is what you prioritise when a task really does benefit from seeing a lot of informat…

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is an incredibly glib oversimplification of design. It's pretty pervasive too, especially in FOSS, which is why FOSS interfaces often suck so bad.

Not all coding is software design, and not arrangement of elements in an interface is interface design. If someone is taking an interface and making it "look nice" by removing beneficial components, then what they are doing is not design. Design is a process and a mentality, not a singular activity.

What you describe as the hard choice is merely a point (not even an extreme one) on the spectrum of what constitutes interface design. Broadly speaking, the first step, always, is to figure out what the user's goals are, to whatever extent possible. You might be able to do in-depth user research with focus groups and eye-tracking and put together user stories with A/B testing etc. etc. etc. You might only be able to do some personal research and play around with the software a bit and draw some diagrams. The second step is to figure out how you can help your users accomplish those goals most effectively through the arrangement and functionality of the on-screen elements. Without your primary concern being what the user actually needs, you're just decorating, or maybe organizing.

Reducing the amount of data on a screen isn't a end in itself. If it contributes to the user performing their task better, then great. If it inhibits it, it's the wrong choice. Any person with formal design training should be perfectly comfortable arranging a large amount of complex elements and information on a screen in a comprehensible way. See magazines, train timetables, newspapers, etc.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#190
post #69
post #10

I don't really care about "fun", but I just can't find the words to explain how happy I am that there's a chance we might put all this flat madness behind us. I'm looking forward to: * Not having this conversation with my mom (who, at 60+, is remarkably adept with computers but hey, we all run into trouble sometimes) over the phone anymore: Me: Okay mom, now press the "Edit" button Mom: Which one's the edit button? M…

The real problem isn't necessarily flat vs skeuomorphism - it's the representations that are not really representative to everyone. Try "Click that icon with the floppy disk to save." with a new user.

Icons are always abstractions. Their purpose is to succinctly distinguish one thing from another. In isolation they are sometimes disconnected from the original meaning, particularly if the original meaning was an abstract idea rather than a concrete object.

Are you bothered that “A” no longer means “cattle” because that is where it started.

In the original GUI interfaces you had a combination of icons where space was tight and menus with functions represented by words. That made a lot of sense when very few people had experience with how computers work. Now that more people are familiar with how they work it is not surprising that menus are de-emphasized.

Post reply on HN