91–100 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why would I suddenly need a change? Because your designers need a reason to still exist, and redesigning an entire application is what that reason becomes.
Just like fashion... I wonder why we don't all wear the same style as 100 years ago, no? /s
> People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change. Is there any research that supports this claim? If I use an app for 6 years, why would I suddenly need a change? I'm still ocassionally using a 10 y/o version of Photoshop. In fact, I'm very happy that it does not change. I wouldn't want to spend time on re-learning the UI. The same is true for many apps that…
So glad to see low-contrast, energy-consuming drop-shadows go away though. Is translucency gone now too so I can get my battery cycles back?
> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this…
This makes it appropriate for buildings that are looking to evoke anti-human ideals; churches and monasteries (divinity of God over the profanity of man), as well as many governmental buildings of the period (intimidation and hopefully an inhuman/machine-like approach to orderliness and bureaucracy)
> "People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change" Real world objects rarely change design because of the costs involved. When they do, the change needs to justify that cost. For example, I'm not going to change the buttons on my microwave because I'm "bored" with them. The costs of changing software design is far less impractical and expensive, and therefor…
> Real world objects rarely change design because of the costs involved What an astonishing claim. Fashion is too easy, you could maybe wiggle away from clothes not being "objects in the real world" although I assure you the Emperor aside they are exactly that. How about cars?
I don't have to learn how to use scissors or paperclips everytime, I use somebody else's stationery. There is a fundamental form to daily objects that does not change or otherwise changes in leap steps often by completely depricating the old object.
> Brutalism is a 1950’s architectural trend that was abandoning all decorations, and creating brutally simple buildings made from concrete. They often weren’t even painted to emphasize their brutal nature. So big, brutal blocks of concrete. The word "brut" came from French "Béton brut" which means "raw concrete" — has nothing with how "brutal" we perceive it to be. There's lots of architecture articles covering this…
Upvote from a Champagne drinker ;)
> "People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change" Real world objects rarely change design because of the costs involved. When they do, the change needs to justify that cost. For example, I'm not going to change the buttons on my microwave because I'm "bored" with them. The costs of changing software design is far less impractical and expensive, and therefor…
Designers are typically just _workers_, if it's their own thing, then sure they might want to use that as a canvas to explore things. But generally they produce things and solve problems and don't create them.
In my experience and opinion, products are redesigned because:
- Users who get bored quickly and have superficial concerns are very loud. They want more stuff and different stuff all the time, and they make sure you know it. They don't care about orthogonal, minimal features that work nicely together, nor about stability.
- Marketing people are very good at selling things, internally and externally. Sometimes this is data driven, but it's generally a very hard and fuzzy thing to interpret. They are very good at hitting the right nerves.
- Decision makers, executives are good at inventing work for others, convincing people to follow and expanding their influence. They need to think in the abstract and are often detached from workers and users so they miss important details.
Wikipedia, craigslist, HN, StackOverflow, Indeed, GitHub/GitLab, etc. arguably all fairly consistent while many other e-commerce sites, forums, social networks, job sites and so on have been all over the place and still hideous now.
Yes, they've all had tweaks over the years but none have taken dramatic shifts or bent towards "trending UI paradigms" like "flat" or "brut" which frankly I've always found rather unnecessary on any website that requires you to interact with it.
The sites I listed above are all ones I enjoy using because there's no BS in my way, it's just efficient and quiet.
Well, I don't use craigslist — but if I needed to buy a VHS player, or wanted to find a cash-in-hand gig performing in an adult film, it would be my first port of call.*
Personal portfolio? Sure, design the shit out of it. Random blog or publication? Yeah go for it as long as the content is clear and consumable.
Forum? Shop/e-commerce? CMS/CRUD? Actual web app? Data tools? Anything that actually has to be used? Make it plain and bland, but make it work and work fast.
* Do not do this.
Please, no. I mean, I'm ok some websites go this way, but overal, I preffer the cleanness of the flat style for most of the services.
I've hated flat.. It lacks the intuitiveness of what can be pressed and what can't. And it looks unsophisticated in my opinion.. I always liked the skeuomorphism unless it was totally overdone liked the iOS notepad app or its game center.
Please, no. I mean, I'm ok some websites go this way, but overal, I preffer the cleanness of the flat style for most of the services.
Can't there be a middle ground? I have a real hard time with the flat low-contrast design that's everywhere. The low contrast material design makes it incredibly difficult to navigate, you constantly have to guess what is a button and what is not. I think something like Windows 95 is peak interface design. Sounds facetious but think about it: Controls are clearly distinguished from content with not only colors but be…
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/238386.238611
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12330899
I believe that the limitations of common consumer hardware of the time also helped. Designing around 640x480x4 basically forces designers to focus on function over form. Whereas today, one could get so lost in trying to make an interface beautiful, that they forget it's ultimately a tool.
To me, examples like [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] would be the closest the modern web can really get to "brutalism", but for some reason I can't imagine design blogs will be fawning over them.
1: https://img2.storyblok.com/860x0/filters:format(webp)/f/1172...
2: https://secretgeek.github.io/html_wysiwyg/html.html
3: https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
/f/117250/1400x637/61e86390ac/brut6.jpeg){kind=link}