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

The Dribbblisation of Design

insideintercom.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#81

Post by nnash »

TheZenPsycho wrote: post #61
Aloisius wrote: post #37

Earlier 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'm pretty sure "UX" was created as a term in response to the market getting flooded with stylists

UX is an umrbella term[1] for usability related disciplines; it's recent conflation as a buzz-word has led to the misinterpretation of it's original meaning.

>UX won't get similarly watered down?

It already has been seeing as how no one seems to know what it means.

[1] http://www.interaction-design.org/images/encyclopedia/human_...

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#82

Post by TheZenPsycho »

nnash wrote: post #81
TheZenPsycho wrote: post #61

Earlier 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'm pretty sure "UX" was created as a term in response to the market getting flooded with stylists UX is an umrbella term[1] for usability related disciplines; it's recent conflation as a buzz-word has led to the misinterpretation of it's original meaning. >UX won't get similarly watered down? It already has been seeing as how no one seems to know what it means. [1] http://www.interaction-design.org/images/encyclope…

I have seen very similar diagrams. except the circle in that diagram labeled "UX" is usually labelled "Design".

And incidentally what on earth is HCI, Human Factors, and Industrial design doing all disjoint? they should all overlap.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#83

Post by goblin89 »

cschmidt wrote: post #65
dreamfactory wrote: post #45

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/ ?

IMO: Considering its place currently in overall page layout, logo might be better simplified and with less contrast. E.g., take the favicon version—it's nice too, actually.

It especially concerns the application section of Predictobot: current logo will be too distracting.

Compare a few pages with similar layout to yours, note they all use more schematic logos that draw less attention to header: https://www.getsentry.com/, http://www.fiftythree.com/paper, even http://insideintercom.io/

http://www.docker.io/ is interesting: their logo looks good in ‘hero unit’ as it has the detail, and at the same time not bad in header because of more or less simple shape and not much contrast. (For favicon they've simplified it somewhat.)

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#85

Post by dreamfactory »

neovi wrote: post #80
cschmidt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/ ?

I'm going to use your logo as an example of what design should be and why the author is on the right track. 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…

> A functional without aesthetic car would be a garbage truck.

Though a jeep looks great and is iconic. I'd argue that's because it doesn't have aesthetic applied but that it emerges from purely functional design (and by comparison off-road styling of city cars always looks lame). There are loads of examples of functional 'ugly' things that are yet design classics - e.g. adjustable wrench, Leica M6, Brompton folding bike, yellow school bus, band-aid, Lego, paperclip.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#86

Post by djillionsmix »

coldcode wrote: post #3

When I read this type of criticism, I always get the impression that everyone thinks they are better at what they do than everyone else.

congratulations you are now the 1,000,000,000th internet customer to be linked to the dunning-kruger effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

you're a little bit off: everyone thinks they are shit at what they do, but great at what anybody else does

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#87

Post by jared314 »

It sounds like you could relate the same statement to using github has hiring criteria. And, I believe enough discussion around that, as an indicator of technical ability, has already happened to say that it is only an indicator of awareness, interest, and activity. I would be interested in knowing how other industries have handled the online portfolio trend. Has SoundCloud affected the hiring of musicians, or YouTube and acting auditions?

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#88

Post by joe_the_user »

rriepe wrote: post #24

As someone who went through a job hunt without a "Dribbblized" portfolio a couple years ago: Go with the Dribbble approach. At least if you're looking for anything resembling a design job. That final layer of polish and execution is what gets you hired. If you don't have that, you get eliminated immediately. Nobody will ask about your process or your wireframes if your resume gets tossed in the trash bin. You'll neve…

Sure but it seems both you and he can both be right in a sense. A designer needs Dribblized portfolio and Dribblization is making things shallow and hard to use.

The present ultra-competitive world optimizes some things but neglects others.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#89

Post by lotso »

TheZenPsycho wrote: post #61
Aloisius wrote: post #37

Earlier 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…

From the Wikipedia page on graphic design:

"Graphic design is a creative process between a client and a designer, traditionally completed in conjunction with producers of form (printers, sign makers, programmers etc.). Graphic design is created to convey a specific message (or messages) to a targeted audience. The field is also often referred to as Visual Communication or Communication Design. Graphic designers use various methods to create and combine words, symbols, and images to create a visual representation of ideas and messages. A graphic designer may use a combination of typography, visual arts and page layout techniques to produce a final result. Graphic design often refers to both the process (designing) by which the communication is created and the products (designs) which are generated. Common uses of graphic design include identity (logos and branding), publications (magazines, newspapers and books), print advertisements, posters, billboards, website graphics and elements, signs and product packaging. For example, a product package might include a logo or other artwork, organized text and pure design elements such as images, shapes and color which unify the piece. Composition is one of the most important features of graphic design, especially when using pre-existing materials or diverse elements."

It seems to me graphic design is more about the visual appearance than "how it works." I've read a fair amount of books on interaction, product, and visual design and have never read that graphic design had been all of those things.

I've worked at companies where you have people working specifically on either interaction design, visual design, motion design, or user research. All of them were contributing to how it works and how it looks, and had distinct jobs (although they worked closely together).

Also, Human-Computer Interaction is a field that is newer than graphic design, and touches more on just visual design, so I'm not really sure why you are pushing this idea that graphic design = UX/interaction/product design.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#90

Post by danmaz74 »

lotso wrote: post #89
TheZenPsycho wrote: post #61

Earlier 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…

From the Wikipedia page on graphic design: "Graphic design is a creative process between a client and a designer, traditionally completed in conjunction with producers of form (printers, sign makers, programmers etc.). Graphic design is created to convey a specific message (or messages) to a targeted audience. The field is also often referred to as Visual Communication or Communication Design. Graphic designers use v…

From your own quote: "Graphic design is created to convey a specific message (or messages) to a targeted audience" = form follows function (communication), not the other way around.
Post reply on HN