11–20 of 24 posts
I really have a hard time with people who insist on framing UX design like some kind of social science that guarantees great design and meaningful experiences . This is yet another guide on design “laws” and “proven techniques” coming from the a single vendor, this time growth.design, using Design Thinking business jargon to add more faux legitimacy to their consultancy work.
I also stress the facts that most engenees are so bad to understand the reality of these human rules on design...
Once, in a blog post a designer said this: - "Most engeneers are visualy Handicapt : Deal with it" I feel this is very true
I can’t trust this article and instantly turned off by the excessive use of Emojis. You might argue - what’s the problem? I’d say, what’s the need! Do they add any value? Why combine semiological characters with an otherwise perfectly fine and widely accepted English orthography? Are they accessible? Is there a emotion being conveyed? Why add cognitive load? Is the design severely broken or dysfunctional without Emoj…
Right away, the headings and list at the top of the page are much more readable. I find myself anchoring not to the emoji but to the actual headings on the page, like "Meaning".
But then we've the list, with all those circles that used to contain emoji...
If you want to remove the circles, use:
document.querySelectorAll('.rll-bias__icon__wrapper').forEach(x => x.parentElement.removeChild(x))
.type-post .post-content .rll-bias__container { padding-left: 30px }
The lists, on the other hand, immediately feel less visually approachable because my mind is asking for simple visual examples of each, but those aren't present until I click, at best.
It's interesting. To me, the emojis add an artificial sense of "completeness" to the page that make the page visually rich but don't necessarily add to the experience as much as creating new visualizations for each list item would. And they obscure how much of the list isn't finished yet, in terms of having examples and a detailed explanation.
But reading the list with emojis, there is definite value, especially because it has me questioning what each emoji means to the list item. Some of them seem very literal to the point where they're not helpful - some distort the meaning, such as "Framing" or "Contrast" whose emojis represent a different use of the word (a picture frame vs framing an argument; happy/sad extremes vs isolating an element to draw attention to it).
And I can't download the cheat sheet without turning off my adblocker/tracking protections, it seems.
The more I read the page without emojis the more I realize, it's a list of definitions. One could imagine this alphabetically sorted at the back of a book on this topic. Useful? Yes. But easy to apply? Not really.
If these were cards or checklists or if I could swipe through, see a random example, and remind myself of how I could creatively one of these principles to a problem at hand, I think I'd find these very useful. Alternatively, I could see myself looking over an entire site and asking myself, for each of these principles, where it might be useful or violated in a current design, then marking comments for future improvements.
Thinking about it without examples makes it feel too much like a flash card memory quiz. Quick, what's the "Von Restorff Effect"?! It's a bit mentally taxing. :D It's only when you expand and add examples that I feel I've enough context to remember more than just the name of something.
I really have a hard time with people who insist on framing UX design like some kind of social science that guarantees great design and meaningful experiences . This is yet another guide on design “laws” and “proven techniques” coming from the a single vendor, this time growth.design, using Design Thinking business jargon to add more faux legitimacy to their consultancy work.
I wish you explained why you felt this way, because I don’t understand.
"The Four-Letter Code to Selling Just About Anything"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/what-ma...
Of course this is also a kind of self-marketing, but it seems fair considering the amount of work that probably went into this.
It says a lot about the page design that items that look really similar, with emojis next to them, are indistinguishable from one another and thus information -- or jokes -- can hide in plain sight thanks to design decisions that downplay and don't highlight what might actually be relevant content. The fact that the lists are so long and this is buried down near the bottom of the last list says something about this.
Only one comment of 128 comments mentions the Batman Curse according to a quick CTRL+F. ;-) And if you read that comment, it mentions a missing Law. ;-)
> The Batman Curse
> Animal attacks at a young age can sometimes turn people into vigilantes
> THE BATMAN CURSE DEFINITION
> Studies have shown that a child’s brain can produce unique hormones in reaction to dangerous animal encounters. During puberty, 1 out of 10 children will start seeing the effect of ADN alterations. Their brain becomes wired to look for justice.
> THE BATMAN CURSE EXAMPLES
> A recent surge of vigilantes cases in Watopia alerted authorities to investigate the Batman curse. One individual was arrested and revealed that he was attacked by bats when he was 6 years old.
> Who needs a reference? Everybody knows it’s true, Fail·Design (2020)
Those emojis are like rainbow puke that actively hinder the reading of the text. The bright colours jump out so much that it's harder to stay anchored to the text. Rather ironic.
I wonder if the human brain is starting to segregate emoji from iconography the way we instinctively don’t look at ads on pages. (Last year I insisted a web app did not have a feature and after conversing with the vendor they showed me it was there, in a little ad-shaped rectangle to the right side of the page. My brain did not let me look at it)