Design is losing its seat at the table • Hacker News Board

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#71

Post by collyw » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 10:34 AM UTC

killerdhmo wrote: post #2

Design is not how something looks. It's not pastel colors, and slick animations and cutesy UI. Design is intrinsically tied to function. Design is how you think about and solve a problem. I go back to Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design often. [0] I've highlighted a few key ones here: Good Design Makes a Product Useful : A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional but…

Ask on many sites about examples of good design (including here), and you get pointed to dribble.

I do agree with you however. I (usually try to) "design" my software before I start writing it (unlike the "agile / schemaless/ latest-fad" developers). It works well for me. Usually saves a lot of work in the medium to long term.

The problem is that design is an ambiguous word that can cover every aspect of building an application. We need to be able to differentiate between "pretty looking design" and a "well architected, thought through database / software design", and all of the "design" elements in between.

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#72

Post by collyw » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 11:51 AM UTC

carrotleads wrote: post #38

ryanSrich wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Design is not how something looks You're right. But it certainly includes how it looks. You can't silo off certain aspects of interaction between products and users. The visual aesthetics of a product are subjectively at the front of the line when it comes to design. Design is a "why not both" profession. You can't have a pretty looking site that doesn't function properly and still have a great product. You also ca…

>> You also can't have a functioning site that looks like shit and still have a great product. craigslist will beg to differ and is an example of why functioning site with shit look is better than great look with bad function the guys at 42 floors figured this out by testing. http://darrennix.com/our-homegrown-ab-testing-framework-at-4...

A few years back I used to hear people complain about google's shit looking design. As a software engineer, I thought it was the exact opposite, elegance and simplicity. I don't hear that much any more, I think the complainers have finally worked it out.

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#73

Post by joeyspn » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 11:52 AM UTC

collyw wrote: post #71

killerdhmo wrote: post #2

Design is not how something looks. It's not pastel colors, and slick animations and cutesy UI. Design is intrinsically tied to function. Design is how you think about and solve a problem. I go back to Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design often. [0] I've highlighted a few key ones here: Good Design Makes a Product Useful : A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional but…

Ask on many sites about examples of good design (including here), and you get pointed to dribble. I do agree with you however. I (usually try to) "design" my software before I start writing it (unlike the "agile / schemaless/ latest-fad" developers). It works well for me. Usually saves a lot of work in the medium to long term. The problem is that design is an ambiguous word that can cover every aspect of building an…

Whoever points you to dribbble as a source of good design is not a designer, or is a designer with a narrow scope. A designer will point you to things like Red Dot [0], or many of the schools of Design Thinking that have shaped our modern world.

I also design software. I sketch the UI and architect the software myself before passing the ideas and engaging software engineers. Maybe I'm lucky cos I had my hours of both Engineering and Design at college. And IMHO this is how designers in the software industry should be: driving the product from conception to build, like in the Industrial Design world. In other words:

Industrial Designer = Arts + Engineering (Physics, Math, Materials, CAD/CAE)

Software Designer = Arts + Engineering (Math, Programming, Design Tooling/IDE's)

This approach to design is holistic. That's the big difference I see, Industrial Designers have strong engineering background and know "how it works" [1] internally, they pick the materials and do the math, and even have estimations of the production costs beforehand. Apple is driven by this kind of Designers. Designers in the software industry usually are not trained to understand how the software works internally, let alone making costs estimations.

[0] http://en.red-dot.org/

[1] http://is.gd/3RPHhE

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#74

Post by pluma » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 12:26 PM UTC

raphael_l wrote: post #63

nextos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or aluminium plus glass, such a brittle combination just for the sake of aesthetics.

The quote from Jobs gets thrown around pretty heavily, but I also think it is interpreted very narrow sometimes. For me, "(...) how it works" isn't just about functionality, but about "how it works on the user". Yeah, aluminium plus glass may be a brittle combination, but if people like it, it just works. And this isn't on the same level as the "how it looks", because that can be quite different. Facebook Paper for e…

It only "works" in the sense that users buy it because it's shiny.

Unless you're saying the only point of the iPhone is that people buy it, that isn't sufficient.

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#75

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 12:56 PM UTC

jasonmp85 wrote: post #6

killerdhmo wrote: post #2

Design is not how something looks. It's not pastel colors, and slick animations and cutesy UI. Design is intrinsically tied to function. Design is how you think about and solve a problem. I go back to Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design often. [0] I've highlighted a few key ones here: Good Design Makes a Product Useful : A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional but…

> Design is intrinsically tied to function. Like how this designer chose to post on Quora, where the fixed-width header means when I hit page-down on my keyboard, I miss the first two lines of text on the next page?

I'm pretty sure this isn't due to the header. I've experienced sites that have the same problem, and I've also experienced sites that have a fixed header but still manage to handle scrolling appropriately.

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#76

Post by jimmaswell » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #41

carrotleads wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You also can't have a functioning site that looks like shit and still have a great product. craigslist will beg to differ and is an example of why functioning site with shit look is better than great look with bad function the guys at 42 floors figured this out by testing. http://darrennix.com/our-homegrown-ab-testing-framework-at-4...

Success != a great product. Often times users have no choice but to use the only choice. That's like saying people choose Comcast because it's a great product. No. People choose Comcast because it's the only product. Craigslist became popular at a time when thoughtful UI design wasn't repeated or regarded as necessary.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9378532

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#77

Post by WorldWideWayne » Wed, Apr 15, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #36

ryanSrich wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Design is not how something looks You're right. But it certainly includes how it looks. You can't silo off certain aspects of interaction between products and users. The visual aesthetics of a product are subjectively at the front of the line when it comes to design. Design is a "why not both" profession. You can't have a pretty looking site that doesn't function properly and still have a great product. You also ca…

>> Design is not how something looks > You're right. But it certainly includes how it looks. I hate to use this example because it was so hyped at the time but... Pinch-zoom is awesome functionality and has NO look, only function and feel. There is no visible UI, you just grab the image/map with 2 fingers and resize it. It's one of the best UI concepts in ages. The only thing it may not be is discoverable. This is wh…

> ...Apple...they want you to interact with your stuff...

I don't think you really made the case for this. How exactly do you equate using pinch-zoom to "interacting with my stuff" rather than "interacting with Apple's software"?

I feel like I own my Microsoft products way more than my Apple products. Whenever I use Apple's stuff, I feel just like an apartment renter who isn't even allowed to control my own thermostat.

Re: Design is losing its seat at the table

#78

Post by raphael_l » Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 1:48 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #74

raphael_l wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote from Jobs gets thrown around pretty heavily, but I also think it is interpreted very narrow sometimes. For me, "(...) how it works" isn't just about functionality, but about "how it works on the user". Yeah, aluminium plus glass may be a brittle combination, but if people like it, it just works. And this isn't on the same level as the "how it looks", because that can be quite different. Facebook Paper for e…

It only "works" in the sense that users buy it because it's shiny. Unless you're saying the only point of the iPhone is that people buy it, that isn't sufficient.

It works for Apple and how they want it to work. That's why it is designed well.

Design is very much depending on the intended outcome. Apple wants to sell devices -> design them so that they get bought (make them "shiny", as you put it ;)). Of course this is not the only point of what Apple wants, but it certainly is the biggest one.