11–20 of 23 posts
[1] https://neil.computer/notes/the-design-of-diskprices-com/
This is a simple blog post. Almost only text. You can't read it with a screen reader because all is loaded via JavaScript. Please stop this crap. Sincerely the open web.
This is a simple blog post. Almost only text. You can't read it with a screen reader because all is loaded via JavaScript. Please stop this crap. Sincerely the open web.
I wrote about Diskprices.com[1]. They've got a pretty awesome FAQ that cuts through the layers and sheds light on something I've always found as the root cause of too much design - i.e, modern corporations have too many full-time designers. If you study the history of corporate design, it wasn't the case at all. [1] https://neil.computer/notes/the-design-of-diskprices-com/
Not counting telepathy, the author has found the design that works best… for themselves. This could work well for many other people too, but that remains to be seen.
Switching to first person now:
The real question is, “What design works best for the target audience of my product?”
If my target audience is only me and others like me, then the author’s suggested design is the best.
But if we’re designing for a wider audience, we need to figure out if this works for them or not. For that we need to define the target audience, and then we need to figure out where we need to compromise. We can design for the middle of the bell curve, much to the chagrin of the power users at the edges. Or we can aim squarely for the power users and be too overwhelming for the mainstream. Or we could keep simple features for mainstream users front and centre, and progressively disclose advanced power user features only for those who signal intent. There are many ways.
Design is often about compromise. Often, when I see people proclaiming design as “good” or “bad”, I don’t take it seriously until they have investigated the reasoning behind the decisions. It’s always easy to second guess from an armchair and the internet has made it even easier.
E. g. where exactly to display the text, what should be the copy, how does the text input behave, where is it positioned and how does it all handle potential error, loading or any other state. To define all of these things and more is to design. Simple-looking visuals don't necessarily mean a lack of design.
This is a simple blog post. Almost only text. You can't read it with a screen reader because all is loaded via JavaScript. Please stop this crap. Sincerely the open web.
I don't believe there's such a thing as "no design" design. It makes very little sense to me. There can be design with very simple and efficient flow but each individual interaction can (and probably should) be engineered. E. g. where exactly to display the text, what should be the copy, how does the text input behave, where is it positioned and how does it all handle potential error, loading or any other state. To d…
How could you possibly have escaped the Steve Jobs quote about how design is about "how it works" and not "how it looks", even though it's posted a million times a day on every social platform?
You'd expect that kind of thing to be part of the social unconscious at this point. Not to mention that Jobs isn't close to having even invented that.
I like the underlying concept a lot (roughly, use technology to accomplish minimal-interaction user experiences). Practically, however, I think it's rather hard to accomplish because a lot of constraints/forces are going to incentive developers/companies to do what's easiest for them.