Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, how do you measure excellent results?
It was a good process. My designer was quick, responsive, fairly priced, and came up with what I think is a great logo. I'm very happy with it, and I consistently get positive feedback ('cool robot'). What do you think: http://www.predictobot.com/ ?
The Dribbblisation of Design
71–80 of 104 posts
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#72This article offers many solid advice for that talented albino sasquatch designer looking to differentiate himself in his job application for a well-funded start up.
But for the rest of us monkeys, having an extremely solid looking visual design skill (even at the expense of being a bit too trendy) will serve us well. These days, I have to go through about 30 resumes to see 1 that has fairly good design skill, and still not Dribbbbbble level.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#73The web is with us all the time. It’s already moving into our cars, into our clothes, into the things we own, into monitoring our health. Is he using the word 'web' instead of 'Internet'? Does anyone know of the web moving into our clothes?
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#74I'm a designer on Dribbble. The work I present on Dribbble and the "actual" work I do for my clients are quite different most of the time. You can think of Dribbble as the "runway" of graphic/UI design - most of the stuff there are for showing off the designers' ability and/or are conceptual. They are fun and beautiful to look at, but not always designed for practical use, just like most people won't wear runway fash…
So it sounds to me like you agree with him – your Dribbble content is closer to "digital art" than "examples of your typical design work". I wonder if there'd be an opportunity for a Dribbble-like site to showcase your "business goal articulation" or "optimised interaction flow"? I'm guessing not – partly because I don't think nearly as many people do that work for "fun" (in the way that many people _do_ create polis…
When a potential client contacts me on Dribbble, I usually send them samples of my "real" work so they can get a better idea of what they will be getting from me.
I used Forrst for a while, and some people posted design processes there. However, people are naturally drawn to eye candies more. Like others have mentioned, Behance is another option.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who has hired designers over the years for various startups, I agree. The author seems to conflate UX with visual design or graphic design. They are not the same thing and often aren't done by the same person. I've had fantastic UX designers who, frankly, can't get perfectly laid out pixel perfect work done or do eye candy. I've had UI/graphic designers who were awful at figuring out flow. I've had people…
The author isn't conflating. That is what the words mean, and "UX" is the made up wank word. It's the "Web 2.0." of the design world. I'm pretty sure "UX" was created as a term in response to the market getting flooded with stylists (interested amateurs) calling themselves "designers". I'm interested to see what you believe to be the distinction between "visual design" and "graphic design". Traditionally, Graphic des…
I got lost around "wank word" and UX being the "Web 2.0 of the design world." Most UX people I know are focused on user research, usability, information architecture, and interaction design. I'd say maybe, 1 in 5 are visual designers, and maybe 1 in 3 have any passable graphic design skill at all.
Maybe you're saying that people will be just called "user researcher", "information architect", etc etc and not use the word UX. But I think "wank word" is a tad inaccurate.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm aware. They shouldn't be used interchangeably.
Could you expand on that, I've heard people say this but I've never heard a good reason for why, they just assumed I understood it intuitively, when it wasn't too clear at all.
The web is content, the net is machinery.
When you are on Xbox and playing against someone else, you are playing over the internet but you are not playing over the web. Similarly, you can download web pages but you cannot download the internet.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author isn't conflating. That is what the words mean, and "UX" is the made up wank word. It's the "Web 2.0." of the design world. I'm pretty sure "UX" was created as a term in response to the market getting flooded with stylists (interested amateurs) calling themselves "designers". I'm interested to see what you believe to be the distinction between "visual design" and "graphic design". Traditionally, Graphic des…
I can't tell if you're saying that visual/graphic designers are saying they are doing "UX", or if "UX" people are really just hand-waving visual designers? I got lost around "wank word" and UX being the "Web 2.0 of the design world." Most UX people I know are focused on user research, usability, information architecture, and interaction design. I'd say maybe, 1 in 5 are visual designers, and maybe 1 in 3 have any pas…
I think designers are getting worse and worse at doing one aspect of design and so they ignore it and latch onto a term that purposefully disregards that aspect. So a UX designer would scoff at the visual design aspect because that's not part of their job.
In most cases, outside of huge companies, a designer does pretty much every aspect of what most people consider to be design; visual, UX, UI, Information architecture, research, and branding. That's what designers are trained to do, that's the point of being a designer, you NEED to know how to do all of these things in order to call yourself a designer.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author isn't conflating. That is what the words mean, and "UX" is the made up wank word. It's the "Web 2.0." of the design world. I'm pretty sure "UX" was created as a term in response to the market getting flooded with stylists (interested amateurs) calling themselves "designers". I'm interested to see what you believe to be the distinction between "visual design" and "graphic design". Traditionally, Graphic des…
I can't tell if you're saying that visual/graphic designers are saying they are doing "UX", or if "UX" people are really just hand-waving visual designers? I got lost around "wank word" and UX being the "Web 2.0 of the design world." Most UX people I know are focused on user research, usability, information architecture, and interaction design. I'd say maybe, 1 in 5 are visual designers, and maybe 1 in 3 have any pas…
Most people in hiring positions couldn't give two shits that a designer is supposed to do more than just make things pretty- And so they hire people who call themselves "designers" that actually are little more than glorified photoshop operators. Why? because these "designers" are cheaper than these other "designers" and it's not obvious why. The amateurs undercut the professionals.
This puts the real designers, the ones with educations, that actually know design principles, typography, psychology, etc, and have years of experience- in the difficult situation of having to distinguish themselves from these interested amateurs- these "stylists". So I believe, in a turn of marketing genius, some designers came up with the term "UX", and insist that it is NOT this lowly "design" thing, as you know it. It's this totally different thing that is /more/ than just making things look pretty.
Even though, all the things under the "UX" banner are familiar to people with design educations as "design".
That's what "Design" is. UX is just "Design". These are the normal things that you have to do to make a design work.
But how do you communicate that? How do you communicate that Javascript and HTML are capable of so much more now, than they were 5 years ago? You come up with a buzz word. Ajax. Web 2.0. HTML5. To experts who actually know their craft, these are obvious wank words. Meaningless checkboxes that accountants and recruiters can look for on resumes, designed to repackage skills that are decades old as something new and exciting.
But this is hacker news. We shouldn't have to use bullshit marketing terms here. That's for recruiters. That's for clients. Cut the shit, I say. Use the real words with their real meanings.
Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#79Re: The Dribbblisation of Design
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest, how do you measure excellent results?
It was a good process. My designer was quick, responsive, fairly priced, and came up with what I think is a great logo. I'm very happy with it, and I consistently get positive feedback ('cool robot'). What do you think: http://www.predictobot.com/ ?
Your logo looks good. Visually, it's fine...
But what's the point of having dual colored shapes? Why is there a circle behind the antennas? What does the robot represent? Why orange? If you showed the logo to someone, would they be able to think of a word that coincides with a goal/mission of your company? Why is it looking down? If you're looking to predict (keywords: future, time, ready, etc.) then why not make it look forward?
These are the types of questions that struck me first looking at the logo. It feels like there was more focus on how it looked than to what it represents. That's how Dribble designs feel.
They look good and they get the job done (i.e. you have a logo, a client gets a site, etc.), but when you combine functionality with design, that's a real home run.
Using logo design as the example, the first goal of the designer should be to understand the company. What does it want to do? Why does it exist? Like a person, you want to get to know it before you can label it. Once you have the part of what you want to symbolize, what you want to communicate, you can start sketching. Start trying to really capture the soul of the company and present it in an aesthetic and still functional way.
Having aesthetics without much focus on function, that's what I feel the author is categorizing Dribble designers as.
Having functionality without aesthetic, well, we'll use an automobile for that example. A functional without aesthetic car would be a garbage truck.
Having aesthetics and function, you get brands like Porsche, Apple, Lego, OXO...
Sorry for going on a rant using your logo :-)