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

The Flat Sink

sachagreif.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 153 posts

Re: The Flat Sink

#61

Post by yozmsn »

jstanley wrote: post #56
oh_sigh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why people put soap on their hands before turning the water on. Why do you do this? Am I missing something here?

Since soap isn't even liquid on dry hands, I guess he started running the sink, then soaped up his hands to start washing, and tried to turn the taps off when the sink became full.

Well liquid soap does exist... in answer to the first question: I see all my doctors do it, if I had to guess I would say it's because the water kinda gets in the way of the soap, if you use water first, your hands are kinda waterlogged before they have a chance to get soapy...

Re: The Flat Sink

#62

Post by jlgreco »

eduardordm wrote: post #48
crazygringo wrote: post #32

I stayed with a friend in a then-new building designed by Philippe Starck, in New York. The bathroom sink faucet handles were very cool -- just smooth steel cylinders sticking out, that you rotated. Until I tried turning them with my now-soapy hands... and discovered that they were impossible to turn, because there was nothing to grab onto! His stylish cylinders turned out to be completely useless. Turns out knobby h…

Still, someone will eventually call this a feature, because it might force you to dry your hands before turning the knob - keeping it cleaner/dry. Designers will always find a way to justify their crap.

The correct comeback to that would be to assert that such a demand is unnecessarily environmentally unfriendly since it encourages a usage that wastes more water. Green is very stylish, arguably more stylish than standard aesthetics.

Re: The Flat Sink

#63

Post by jongold »

pixl97 wrote: post #44
arscan wrote: post #9

I'm not going to comment on the message as a whole, since this whole flat aesthetic thing has been argued up and down on HN over the last few months. But there was one line that stuck out to me as being a little off: > Get rid of all texture, and you might end up with cold, sterile designs that scare users away. I'm on board with the usability argument, but I don't think that removing gradients and drop shadows neces…

but I don't think that removing gradients and drop shadows necessarily results in designs that "scare users away." Try using Office 2013. It's white and flat (even flatter in Win8 over Win7, you lose refrence to what the 'tools' part and the data part is. It is not inviting at all, unless you dig in to the options and try to put some slightly different colors/textures on it.

It fails because it's been designed by idiots, not because it's 'flat'

Re: The Flat Sink

#64

Post by Retric »

ebf wrote: post #30
sgdesign wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

Is it actually harder though? I don't think so. I think there is some truth to the idea that content over chrome is a good usability principle (obviously to an extent, Win8 takes it a little too far sometimes), and in my opinion, it is easier to learn proper use of whitespace and good typography than how to make textures and less "sterile" designs. My point is you are stating your opinion as if it is a truth, when it…

Your examples all have the content centered under a single column (which is a LOT of chrome), a flat design would have little to no margins.

DF (http://daringfireball.net/) even has site index which is another no no from a flat deign perspective.

PS: Notice how both of these changes make the sight less user friendly?

Re: The Flat Sink

#65

Post by jlgreco »

idan wrote: post #33
zefhous wrote: post #2

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the Middle East flat kitchen sinks are standard and ubiquitous. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it's an aesthetic design decision — I bet it's more of a cultural preference. I don't like flat sinks, but I can see how some people do. In Lebanon they generally build large flat sinks right into the countertop with the same marble. They are much larger than most Amer…

Same in Israel, with the caveat that households which keep kosher often have two sinks side-by-side; one for meat and one for dairy.

In the US I often see kitchens that have two "sinks" with one faucet in the middle. Usually one of the sinks holds a drying rack.

Re: The Flat Sink

#66

Post by baddox »

sgdesign wrote: post #29
ebf wrote: post #22

>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Citation needed. Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted, tell me that https://svbtle.com/ content isn't on the same plane and still readable? You can have everything on the same plane and with proper use of whitespace and good typography, it can be very readable. Other examples: http://daringfireball.net/ https://medium.c…

I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

"Citation needed" is absolutely snarky, in the sense that it is highly critical. And it should be used consistently and unapologetically. Would you be snarky in your response to someone accusing you of being a witch? I hope so, and I hope you would point out that some evidence would be nice.

Snarkily requesting evidence is not a bad quality in an online community—it's a vital one. Stating things as facts and refusing to even attempt to provide evidence is a bad quality.

If you claim that flat interfaces are more difficult to use, and someone else claims the opposite, how do you each attempt to justify your positions? Do you compete to see who can more quickly compare their opponents to YouTube commenters, or do you simply cite some evidence to corroborate your position?

Re: The Flat Sink

#67

Post by Groxx »

progrock wrote: post #43
chewxy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kitchen sinks are deeper too, so splashes are minimized. Also, my kitchen sink is actually slightly slanted towards the sink hole.

Don't people just use wash buckets inside their kitchen sinks anyway? It would cost me too much otherwise on a water metre in the UK.

The few I've seen have been people with only one sink (so, a single large depression), which makes it easier to wash and rinse. But if it's not large enough, none of them fit, so it's mostly an exercise in futility.

And yes, dishwashers are absolutely everywhere. Some don't have them of course, but they're standard fare in a huge number of places, even relatively cheap apartments.

Re: The Flat Sink

#68

Post by thaumaturgy »

baddox wrote: post #66
sgdesign wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

"Citation needed" is absolutely snarky, in the sense that it is highly critical. And it should be used consistently and unapologetically. Would you be snarky in your response to someone accusing you of being a witch? I hope so, and I hope you would point out that some evidence would be nice. Snarkily requesting evidence is not a bad quality in an online community—it's a vital one. Stating things as facts and refusing…

"Citation needed" is intellectually lazy. It is middlebrow dismissal's slightly more popular cousin.

"Citation needed" is never a counter-argument, but often stands in place of one. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burying your opponent in discovery: it is a challenge that consists solely of expecting someone else to do more work than they would like to.

If you have a question about something, ask. If you disagree with something, then make your argument. Never simply post "citation needed" and think that you have contributed anything to a discussion.

(Just FYI, it's also a "tell" -- some people will avoid engaging you if you post nothing more than "citation needed", just as some people avoid engaging others that end every sentence with "lol".)

Re: The Flat Sink

#69

Post by thaumaturgy »

ebf wrote: post #30
sgdesign wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

Is it actually harder though? I don't think so. I think there is some truth to the idea that content over chrome is a good usability principle (obviously to an extent, Win8 takes it a little too far sometimes), and in my opinion, it is easier to learn proper use of whitespace and good typography than how to make textures and less "sterile" designs. My point is you are stating your opinion as if it is a truth, when it…

I'm not a designer (or a good one, anyway), so I welcome corrections from good designers, but I'd assume that whether or not flatness in this sense is a good idea would totally depend on context: how much site navigation is there, how many other presentational elements, ads, links to other things, etc.

Svtble works because it takes a minimalist's approach to all of that, throwing it all away into the bin. The content is readable because it's almost the only thing on the page. The font is large and the content is centered.

But would that work in the general case, as an approach for user interfaces and search engines and the modern day portal page and so on? I can't think of any examples there that would be considered "good design".

Re: The Flat Sink

#70

Post by gnaffle »

no_more_death wrote: post #31
arscan wrote: post #9

I'm not going to comment on the message as a whole, since this whole flat aesthetic thing has been argued up and down on HN over the last few months. But there was one line that stuck out to me as being a little off: > Get rid of all texture, and you might end up with cold, sterile designs that scare users away. I'm on board with the usability argument, but I don't think that removing gradients and drop shadows neces…

I've noticed that most large companies go for a sterile look. Google, Microsoft, etc. I've always thought of Apple design as sterile as well. Getting off track, Apple design is simply not a monolithic, "zen" one-stroke entity. Apple design amalgamates understated hardware with loud, lickable user interfaces. To see my point, consider that Apple hardware is definitely NOT lickable, whereas software generally is. Histo…

The interesting thing is that the new Apple hardware starting with the iMac certainly started out as lickable, and very similar to the original OSX software (with pinstripes and all). Both the software (OSX) and hardware has gradually become more and more clean and "sterile" with time. The exceptions have mainly been certain applications and a few UI widgets / icons.
Post reply on HN