101–110 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone pushes a statement as a fact and not as their opinion then they better be prepared to back it up it with evidence. End of story.
Do you have evidence to support this claim? Citation needed.
If you said the world was flat, and someone asked for evidence, would you also ask that where is your evidence that you need evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone pushes a statement as a fact and not as their opinion then they better be prepared to back it up it with evidence. End of story.
Oh. Well, since you said, "End of story", I guess you're right after all. That was a powerful argument there, I am in awe.
This is a much bigger fault I have with the Hacker News and the tech community at large lately. People are agreeing with (and to crudely put it, "circlejerking") ideas that are presented as truths, even though they are NOT backed by any data. If the author prefaced his points by stating that this is his or her opinion, I would not be as snarky because then it would be merely be opinion that I disagree with.
This presentation of ideas is laughed at when done in academic circles, yet for some reason, it's okay when it's posted to Hacker News, TechCrunch, Daring Fireball or whatever random blog or news source people read and tend to agree with.
I do not find this acceptable, and I think we should hold people accountable to ideas they push, especially when they are backed by ZERO data.
>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…
And more than that, if you disagree, don't pretend to ask for a citation, just explain why you disagree. Most likely, even if you can't admit it, you'll find that you don't disagree, you are just misinterpreting.
In this case, the statement is
- an opinion based on experience
- obviously true
- coupled with an example anyways
In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.
You probably received down votes because "citation needed" is lazy, uninformative, uninteresting, and, in this case, wrong.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a skeptic (i.e. scientific skeptic), then you default to not believing a claim until evidence is introduced to support it. Is it intellectually lazy to say "citation needed" to someone that is accusing someone else of being a witch? I firmly believe that I have no obligation to prove that I am not a witch, and moreover that such attempts would be impossible. The person who makes a claim that has not been wi…
Do you really expect "citation needed" to prompt a useful discussion? How often do you think that happens? Here, click through the search results for comments with "citation needed" and tell me how many great discussions followed from it: http://hn.shomisearch.com/#comments+with+citation+needed Don't you think it's boring? Don't you think there might be a better way of asking a question about a claim than merely thro…
Not really, and that's not the point of the statement. Until there is evidence, the only thing to discuss are your own predictions of what the evidence would show, or your own useless anecdotes. The point of the statement is to challenge the claimant to provide evidence, and as a side effect, to remind other readers to be skeptical of claims until they see evidence.
Sure, it might be boring, especially relative to baseless assertions that make a complex problem sound easy. Again, staving boredom is not the goal of most conversations—for that I turn to cinema or video games. Witch trials, while unscientific and horrifying, were certainly not boring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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…
The "citation needed" is one of my favorite know-it-all, over-objective "hacker" sort of memes. It's just hilarious. Not everything that is true or helpful has or needs a citation. Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs? And more than that, if you disagree, don't pretend to ask for a citation, just explain why you disagree. Most likely, even…
Sure, I could have provided this clarification earlier, but I have already conceded that the original comment was snarky and lacking in context for such a short statement.
And to your specific comments:
>Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs?
Are you suggesting that this isn't testable? I guarantee Microsoft and others have tested it. If the author isn't prepared to provide data, then it should be presented as an opinion.
"I believe that..."
> - obviously true
If it is obviously true, then there must be data to back it, right?
>In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.
My point was in regards to this particular statement, which, in my opinion, is stated as a truth:
>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page.
I've agreed in later comments that you can take "content over chrome" too far in UI design, but this statement is NOT necessarily true in regards to content existing on the same plane. Putting everything on the same plane does not mean that it is harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Poorly designed websites are hard to read, regardless of what plane the content exists. I merely pointed out that there are examples that do not fit this viewpoint. In fact, I would argue that these examples tend to be the most readable designs I've seen, but this is an opinion that I have, so I have made sure to clarify it merely as that: an opinion.
As I've posted below, I am tired of people posting articles or blogs (and others upvoting these posts) that are not backed by any data.
If something is posted as an opinion, then I agree that it doesn't need a citation. Unfortunately, there is a reoccurring theme that I've seen become more and more prevalent in the tech community, a theme where ideas are pushed as truths when the author has done nothing to show that there is actual, credible, merit to the conclusions that have been drawn.
If these ideas were presented in any academic circle without evidence, they would be disregarded and laughed at. Yet here we are, discussing a post with a +200 upvote count, and the author has done little to prove his or her point, besides cherry pick examples that suit his or her conclusions. Content existing on another plane MAY improve readability, but I cannot say for certain. But I can point out that there are some very readable websites that have their content and navigation exist all one one page.
I think we can all agree that bad design leads to bad readability. And content existing on the same plane isn't inherently bad design. Proper use of whitespace and good typography can go a long way to improving readability and the UX. See Bing results http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n... (although I'm not a big fan of their social sidebar, but the results page and the top level navigation, is in my opinion, very usable)
So why should anyone accept this presentation of ideas that are not prefaced with the fact that they are an opinion and are not backed by any data? Why is it snarky to ask for evidence of these ideas, yet in academia it is normal and encouraged to be skeptical? If I presented an idea to my boss, his first question would be where is the data to support this? If I proposed an idea to my advisor, he would ask why do I believe this and what is the supporting evidence for this claim.
Why are these types of posts continually upvoted? Is it because we want agree with the author's idea? Is it because others have already upvoted this, so therefore the author is probably right? I honestly do not understand. It isn't like it is impossible to test this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By your logic then as soon as you get out of the bathroom and touch anything, then your hands aren't clean anymore. So what was the point in cleaning them? Being too much of a maniac with such thing is no good. Especially not for your kids: an environment that is too clean will prevent them from developing proper defenses and as soon as they'll be outside, they'll get sick like sissies all the time :-/
Few things you touch outside the bathroom will be as dirty as the sink faucet. But even so, I don't always wash my hands this way. I do in sensitive situations, though -- at the office where someone's always sick, when I'm preparing food, or when wounds / orifices are involved. That's why I prefaced with "If your goal is to get clean." Sometimes it's just to satisfy a taboo. That's okay.
http://women.webmd.com/home-health-and-safety-9/places-germs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'