121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How / why the back of a phone would be made of a material that is essential glass is beyond me. For wireless charging. If you pay for the extra warranty and break the glass screen you can replace it for $100. If you break the glass back the repair price is astronomical.
Yup, but this used to be the opposite. The front used to be the expense glass to replace.
These kinds of things assume critical importance in the design of an aircraft cockpit. For example, the lever that controls the landing gear has a little tire for the knob. The flap controls have a knob shaped like a flap. All so you know what the control is without needing to look (or the cockpit is filled with smoke). The common theme with all these designs is they are driven by accidents. For some strange reason,…
> humans are pretty bad at creating intuitive designs I've always assumed that is because so few people care about design who are in power of affecting design. This is partially because it takes effort to think about a problem, and it's much easier to not care, or assume someone else will fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> humans are pretty bad at creating intuitive designs I've always assumed that is because so few people care about design who are in power of affecting design. This is partially because it takes effort to think about a problem, and it's much easier to not care, or assume someone else will fix it.
The reason people in power don't care about design is because good design is hard to quantify and thus hard to justify effort and/or expense. The results of bad design (i.e. takeoff power from grandparent) are much easier to quantify and therefore easier to use to catalyze improvement. This is why Apple, under Jobs, was so unique. He helped rebuild the company around design despite the fact that their obsession with…
I wouldn't take that bet.
Jobs simply had a better sense of user interface design than others, and was in a position to get his way. It's not that others didn't care about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more about unknown unknowns.
Before we get to those as an explanation, we need to see less evidence of shit design you can spot instantly without having any experience in the field. If a user can instantly recommend an improvement to the design that most would agree is an improvement, that's evidence of shit design.
In the UI of the 2000’s, the UI is visible, the chrome is visible and it has meaning and utility. Buttons are easily found and pushed because they visibly look like they are extending from the display. That’s an affordance. The window corner used to have a “rough” texture just like exterior stairs have texture strips to keep your feet from slipping. They indicated that the friction from your mouse-pointer on the screen will move the window corner.
These designs allowed user decisions about UI function to exist in the subconscious where they weren’t a distraction from the actual problem at hand.
The bar these days seems to be “is it possible for the user to eventually accomplish their task?) as opposed to “how can we demand even less of the users’ brain for the task to be accomplished?”
I am anticipating this will not be a popular response, but I can’t help but think wrt/ UI design, we’ve collectively thrown out the baby with the bath water for vanity and it’s going to take some criticism to get it back.
Reading this book and studying the UI designs it inspired (ex: early to late 2000’s Mac UI) is IMO the best education a young UI-designer can get.
Edit: I don’t want to lay too much at the feet of designers because it’s probably Product Managers that also need to read this book and care about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. Atleast not with everything all the time. I love how the front camera on my phone is not concentric to the notch. How my table has uneven legs (I place a wooden piece to adjust). How the edge of my door is not aligned with the frame. How some of my t-shirts have slightly uneven sleeves. For me, imperfections make them personal. I am repelled by people ('designers' ;)) looking at everything to find fau…
You are taking the irregularities of t-shirt sleeves in the same way that one interprets the imperfections that result from the hand-making of bespoke clothing, for example, the seams of tailored suits. The latter is craftsmanship; the former is inferior mass production. Not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hasn't Apple ever made a version with a built-in ruggedized case? I hate putting the case on but in practice it's too fragile of a thing for many people's usage patterns. Seems like one of those things, like the flashlight, where they would see how the people are using it and build it in for a more streamlined experience. I don't want to believe the cynical interpretation that they do it to sell more phones/repai…
Because Apple cares about form as much as function and will not sacrifice form. It was almost a religious pursuit for Steve Jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Apple cares about form as much as function and will not sacrifice form. It was almost a religious pursuit for Steve Jobs.
Yes but they know that many people (virtually everybody in my experience) immediately cover and bulk up that beautiful form. It's not really like them to say "well that's their choice to ruin our beautiful work" - it's clearly a very important function. I would think they would take the challenge to make a version that can withstand some abuse and still adhere to their aesthetic standards.