I overwhelmingly prefer the Contacts window on the left to the one on the right.
Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
221–230 of 245 posts
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#222Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you get the idea beauty has terrible ROI? Look at almost any premium product and the premium that is being paid for is in the beauty. Rarely is it in the actual quality of the product.
If you’re selling a premium produce, then beauty can be justified by the premium price. But us should never be more important than the functionality. Never. Even a Rolls Royce is a vehicle (and a damned fine one to boot) before it’s an art piece.
Depends what product. A toaster has very similar functionality to its competitors, so it needs to attract buyers with style and design elements.
When functionality is a given like it is for a kitchen toaster, we can argue the presentation and style is more important.
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
UX often involves research and customer interaction. UI is more straight up visual design, informed by the UX research. The same person might not do both. Do you think they should?
Apple famously did many years of intense user testing to develop their HIG (and maybe still do?). I’m pretty sure xerox did too, and all the other UI researchers many years ago. Maybe even Microsoft did :) In any case, it contradicts your claim, since all this user research was way, way before UX was a thing. Honestly I just got the feeling that the phrase UI had become stale and UX was just seen as a way for a new g…
Apple HIG from 1987 and 1985 (mini-thread): https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/144740767185059020...
The 1985 edition "includes e.g. case studies (useful!), and an extended discussion of Jung's theories of intuition and how they should influence your designs (!!)"
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#225Design is how it works, not how it looks. This article seems to mainly be talking about the "polish" of a design. There are more important principles which don't have anything to do with polish, such as not putting the Cancel button next to the Ok button. More like this: https://lawsofux.com https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles I recommend prototyping the flow/feel…
> Design is how it works, not how it looks. After over a decade of people jumping into these discussions with this line, I’ve gotta push back: Design is also how things look, and how things look can be important. Consumers care about how things look. If we dismiss presentation and drive people towards UX stuff every time it comes up, then the people we talk to are going to end up having good ideas that no one buys be…
I've worked as both a designer and developer and for the life of me I can't help but gravitate towards prettier looking applications even at times over more functional ugly ones.
It's a contradiction to what I "should" want as a developer and I'm very aware of this.
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you know when there is content to scroll then? You randomly scroll parts of the screen to see if they move? Sometimes, but more often I press on page down to read more content until there's no more content to read, so having scrollbar is pointless: it eats screen real estate without providing anything in return
I loathe things "magically" disappearing and reappearing. I want a predictable, consistent interface. I can work faster when things are consistent. Scrollbars, besides allowing me to jump around in a document, give me an indication of where I am on the page. When I ask, "How much of this page/window/document is left? About where am I in it?" (a common question) the answer should be RIGHT THERE and not unhelpfully hid…
> I loathe things "magically" disappearing and reappearing. I want a predictable, consistent interface.
I do not want the trackbar to magically disappear. I want it gone for good, unless I ask for it, which is predictable and consistent.
> I can work faster when things are consistent. Scrollbars, besides allowing me to jump around in a document, give me an indication of where I am on the page.
I work faster with a good concentration, which is helped by a lack of UI clutter (FYI I use my browser in fullscreen mode because I find buttons and tabs distracting)
Hitting the touchscreen, doing a gesture on the trackpad (or the trackpoint), or pressing pageup then pagedown gives me context when I need it and if I need it.
The rest of time, I don't want no scrollbar.
> When I ask, "How much of this page/window/document is left? About where am I in it?" (a common question) the answer should be RIGHT THERE and not unhelpfully hidden/unavailable or difficult to see. I shouldn't have to waste time fighting to find out.
When I do any of the above, the scrollbar is here. The rest of the time, I shouldn't have to waste my concentration on a useless indicator nagging me on the right side of the screen.
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#227Honestly their first concrete example, with fewer borders, is something that bothers me a lot on the internet today. Cool everything looks flat and like part of everything else. That's not hard to go down through a giant list of or anything... /s
The goal was beautiful design, not good usability. You gotta admit that it looks good, and eye candy is usually extremely effective for user retention, even if the alternative handles better, technically.
I also honestly prefer the border example
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, this one is non-obvious: > Label text should be placed within the bounds of the text field box And I'm perfectly fine with Google spending unreasonable amounts of their money so I can learn lightly-valuable facts like this... As long as people don't mass adopt their findings before they get repeated.
This one, I think, is them just not willing to admit their mistake. I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment went like this: "Here are the inputs with only underline. In one of them the label is inside the input". In this case sure, users will better understand it's an input if the label is inside.
You are just literally making things up at this point…
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re selling a premium produce, then beauty can be justified by the premium price. But us should never be more important than the functionality. Never. Even a Rolls Royce is a vehicle (and a damned fine one to boot) before it’s an art piece.
Depends what product. A toaster has very similar functionality to its competitors, so it needs to attract buyers with style and design elements. When functionality is a given like it is for a kitchen toaster, we can argue the presentation and style is more important.
Most toasters are shit so there is definitely room to compete on functionality - it's just harder to convey that to buyers than a pretty design.
Re: Rules for developers to design beautiful UIs without a designer
#230Design is how it works, not how it looks. This article seems to mainly be talking about the "polish" of a design. There are more important principles which don't have anything to do with polish, such as not putting the Cancel button next to the Ok button. More like this: https://lawsofux.com https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles I recommend prototyping the flow/feel…
> Design is how it works, not how it looks.
I think we're getting confused by fuzzy and overlapping definitions of different scope.
Absolutely, design is also how it works. However, how it works is also very much engineering. In fact, I'd argue that the overlap is even stronger there.