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

NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

nodesign.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#121

Post by ryanSrich »

CharlesW wrote: post #89
ryanSrich wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "way it looks, it’s about the way it works" Dangerous to separate these. Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. Of course, aesthetics are subjective, so I'm speaking generally here. My philosophy for design is to always, without exception, strive for a good looking and functioning site. You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. Conversely you can often find sites that look great but are absol…

> Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. […] You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. There are many sites that work well even though they look like shit. Craigslist is a good example.

What makes craigslist look like shit? It's boring sure, but it doesn't look like shit. Many designer portfolios I see with hideous colors and abstract out of proportion illustrations are much worse looking than craigslist.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#122

Post by d0m »

nick-garfield wrote: post #30

I've got to recommend refactoringui.com. They sell a (rather expensive) book on web/mobile app design that explains how to build your design system and use it to create great looking apps. They cover all the bases you would expect like fonts, line-heights, colors, shadows, borders, sizing, working with images, visual hierarchy, using white space, etc. etc. I'm a developer by trade and I work primarily with one other…

Agreed, this is a great resource for developers wanting to improve their design skills. I.e. going from zero to "more-than-good-enough"

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#125

Post by murermader »

galfarragem wrote: post #114
clairity wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...that gives the content some air." lots of whitespace and "air" has become especially fashionable in the past many years. it makes design easier in some ways without necessarily pushing it forward. yes, it forces more conscientiousness of essentiality and contribution of each element (a good thing), but it's also used as an ipso facto justification to resist change and meeting needs (a bad thing). i love seeing…

Design is more complicated than just 'give content some air'. Here[0] doing that would be a recipe to disaster. I'm a user of this tool and it really works like it is. I doubt that making it look more trandy would make it more functional. [0] https://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/assets/img-bru/mainscr.p...

Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time.

And I don't even see a reason that all these different modes need to be visible at the same time. It also takes up alot of space.

There are probably many ways to make this more user friendly, but if it works for you, thats great

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#128

Post by balfirevic »

murermader wrote: post #125
galfarragem wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design is more complicated than just 'give content some air'. Here[0] doing that would be a recipe to disaster. I'm a user of this tool and it really works like it is. I doubt that making it look more trandy would make it more functional. [0] https://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/assets/img-bru/mainscr.p...

Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time. And I don't even see a reason that all these different modes need to be visible at the same time. It also takes up alot of space. There are probably many ways to make this more user friendly, but if it works for you, thats great

> Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time.

It is also true that looking cluttered at first sight does not mean it's not good UX.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#129

Post by wildrhythms »

murermader wrote: post #125
galfarragem wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design is more complicated than just 'give content some air'. Here[0] doing that would be a recipe to disaster. I'm a user of this tool and it really works like it is. I doubt that making it look more trandy would make it more functional. [0] https://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/assets/img-bru/mainscr.p...

Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time. And I don't even see a reason that all these different modes need to be visible at the same time. It also takes up alot of space. There are probably many ways to make this more user friendly, but if it works for you, thats great

Airplane cockpit design is also "cluttered", but the people who will be using the cockpit interface (trained pilots) want that. The cockpit is designed for the pilot, and in every case design should be catered to the needs of the user. I work in UX specifically and try to oppose designing same-y interfaces at every turn. Different apps have different users with different needs. Unfortunately, this is an uphill battle as we've established some mystical need for "branded" interfaces that all look and act the same, regardless of the function or user need.

Re: NoDesign.dev – Tools and resources for non-artistic developers

#130

Post by CharlesW »

ryanSrich wrote: post #121
CharlesW wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. […] You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. There are many sites that work well even though they look like shit. Craigslist is a good example.

What makes craigslist look like shit? It's boring sure, but it doesn't look like shit. Many designer portfolios I see with hideous colors and abstract out of proportion illustrations are much worse looking than craigslist.

> What makes craigslist look like shit?

You said "poorly looking sites" can't work well. But Craigslist works fine, even though it's visual design is as homely as anything you'll find.

The point is that "visual design" is not "design". If you don't like my example, surely you can think of others.

Post reply on HN