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

A New Look for Facebook

behance.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 227 posts

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#171

Post by ams6110 »

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #34
unreal37 wrote: post #13

Have to admire how thorough the designer was. Redesigning even the "events" pages? That's some level of detail there. And this redesign will probably work across tablets and phones too, as everything is "big" and "tablety". But I would not want my Facebook profile to turn into a Metro UI-esque photo collage lacking detail or order.

I totally disagree. They weren't thorough enough to really bother with much of the text anywhere, given the amount of lorem ipsum and many-gendered John Smiths. Content wasn't really top of the list of priorities, it seems, which I think is a bit of a mistake if you're trying to 're-design' something driven entirely by content. Despite that, this concept is pretty much all about an in-your-face layout of pretty pictu…

IIRC Steve Jobs would terminate a design review if any placeholder images, lorem ipsum, etc. appeared anywhere. If the design didn't represent an actual use case he didn't want to waste time on it.

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#173

Post by languagehacker »

Yay, more linkbait from a small, unknown company that thinks they can do a tech giant's job better than them through the sheer power of design! This will look awesome on my Microsoft Surface. Can't wait for Facebook to take the hint.

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#176

Post by balloot »

catshirt wrote: post #107
jmduke wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friends aren't overwhelmingly ugly, but they certainly don't take production-quality pictures. Judging a social app's beauty by the stock photos is like judging the fit of a shirt by how it looks on the model.

this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves. likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.

uh....You do realize that almost every photo on FB is user-generated, right?

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#177

Post by Groxx »

All these kinds of redesigns assume we all have tons of high-res, color-balanced, artistically-balanced, beautiful photos of everything. Have you looked at people's Facebook albums lately? I think it might have a different effect with real data.

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#178

Post by catshirt »

balloot wrote: post #176
catshirt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves. likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.

uh....You do realize that almost every photo on FB is user-generated, right?

your confusion may stem from the fact that i mistook the original analogy. they were calling the shirt into question. my response was calling the model into question. my mistake should be clear if you read both posts carefully. i will elaborate just in case.

every photo on Facebook is user generated. an overwhelming majority of them are bad photos. Facebook is completely aware of this.

as such, it would be an irresponsible design choice for Facebook to create such a huge presence for those photos, like the design proposal does. likewise, it is irresponsible of the proposal author to only use high resolution stock photos of decent looking people for their design.

perhaps my original post was not crystal clear. in retrospect i maintain that it was a fine explanation, albeit terse- and out of context given my misinterpretation. regardless of my post's clarity, your response makes you sound like a dick.

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#179

Post by catshirt »

cookiecaper wrote: post #116
catshirt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves. likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.

but facebook doesn't choose what photos get uploaded. They simply provide the platform for it and the content is up to the users. Most users take photos with camera phones, not DSLRs.

your argument is fallacious in that i never made the assertion that Facebook chose what photos got uploaded. my point is exactly the opposite of that. (but i reserve some responsibility here- see my other response which clarifies a fallacy in my own argument).

a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded

b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality

as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.

Re: A New Look for Facebook

#180

Post by reustle »

ojr wrote: post #99
the_bear wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a pretty common mistake among designers. As a matter of fact, Facebook made this same mistake themselves not too long ago. When they release the "cover photo" feature, they showed off how great it looked when applied to a bunch of professional designers' profiles. When normal people started uploading low-res, vertically oriented images, it was instantly clear how silly of an idea the cover photo is. F…

Cover photo a bad idea? Thats a weird thing to say because after facebook made cover photos available twitter got a header cover, then google plus, and even app.net... The cover photo tells a lot about the person

Pretty sure google plus had cover photos from the beginning, which was before FB implemented them.
Post reply on HN