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

The Dribbblisation of Design

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#31

Post by bshimmin »

dunkelheit wrote: post #22
paulojreis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, one can also speak of UX-isation of design. I would define it as misguided thinking that the designer knows my problems better than myself. It's not that the UX guy knows it better than yourself, but he strives to be able understand it and then to state it more clearly, in an actionable manner. I don't know the call-center operator problems better than he does, but I was able to identify the pain-points…

Ok, I think we all agree that UX design when done properly leads to a better product ;) Maybe the problem is that the field as a whole became more mainstream in the recent years and thus more susceptible to Sturgeon's law. Hence the negative experiences that I am talking about.

I agree. I don't wish to sound overly unkind to an entire discipline here, but I think in recent years there has arisen a perception that UX is a job which pays well and doesn't require any particularly hard skills: software development involves programming which is plainly quite challenging (and maybe requires being good at maths), design is very subjective, brutal (client feedback can be soul-crushing) and often laborious, but UX is this nice fuzzy domain that anyone with an interest in the web and apps can launch themselves into without much prior training or experience.

At least, I've spoken to a few people who feel like that. And I've worked with quite a number of UX people who didn't really seem to have any skills I could easily discern as being useful (but definitely could produce reams of wireframes that made absolutely no sense whatsoever - I remember one hapless UXer who made 10 pages of wireframes describing how he wanted a file upload dialog to work before a developer gently informed him that said dialog was entirely governed by the OS and we would have no control over it).

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#32

Post by rangibaby »

rkalfane wrote: post #21

(Disclaimer: I'm a designer and I'm probably very biased about the matter) In my opinion it's very often a matter of expectations. When a lot of design decisions are taken by a bunch of people, from management, engineering and marketing, including a designer would simply mean having one more person to compromise with. Companies working this way tend to have designers focus more on making the product look good, thus t…

Communicating information clearly was a big reason for Swiss style's ultra-clean aesthetic. It's come back in a way as flat design, but designers should heed the advice that looks pretty doesn't equal good design.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#33

Post by metaphorical »

The idea "form follows function" (or mission or vision) is as old as modernism itself. Its linear approach, from "vision" down to "visual", neglects an important aspect of design process that is dynamic in essence. Often interaction design redefines a product's core function, or a visual design so beautiful that it becomes an integral part of a product's vision. I'm not convinced that product/design process has to be like a waterfall or a tree or a loop. It can be more like a web too.

These days I've reviewed so many portfolios with post-it notes and hand-drawn flow diagrams. Don't they look all the same like dribbble too? Don't they all tell the same story, over and over?

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#34

Post by paulojreis »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #29
paulojreis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problem is that it's just very hard now to set a boundary on where one thing ends and another begins. Application architecture is in the realms of development, answering problems defined by product people, made beautiful and usable by designers. I think you have a misconception here. A designer is not a decorator. Making it usable (and beautiful , as you call it) is way below conceiving the product, in…

No, I think in many projects designers are decorators - which leaves no one in charge of the user experience from the point of view of the user. In the same way that a full-stack Linux expert isn't going to understand how someone without 5+ years of command line experience approaches a computer, a trained designer with an experienced eye is always going to struggle to point themselves in the place of a naive user. Go…

> No, I think in many projects designers are decorators - which leaves no one in charge of the user experience from the point of view of the user.

I agree. That's my experience in this industry, and in big projects. Designers are hired to make things look pretty.

> In the same way that a full-stack Linux expert isn't going to understand how someone without 5+ years of command line experience approaches a computer, a trained designer with an experienced eye is always going to struggle to point themselves in the place of a naive user.

... but with this I can't agree. It's not a reasonable comparison. The full-stack Linux expert won't understand the user mostly because it's not his job to do so. He doesn't have the knowledge and methodology to get to know and understand the user (as well as his context). The UX expert, on the other hand, should be trained specifically to do this in the most systematic and unbiased way possible. He doesn't need exactly to role-play the user (frankly, I don't like this conception of UX, but that's a pet peeve), but he should know and understand him. It's not "I think the user will like this", it's "I know users want this".

> Good UI needs to be tested for design assumptions and for user taskflow. The testing needs to be repeated every time changes are made.

And in this we fully agree again. All the knowledge the UX expert can harness about the user and his context should be validated, as early as possible.

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#35

Post by digitalengineer »

bshimmin wrote: post #31
dunkelheit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I think we all agree that UX design when done properly leads to a better product ;) Maybe the problem is that the field as a whole became more mainstream in the recent years and thus more susceptible to Sturgeon's law. Hence the negative experiences that I am talking about.

I agree. I don't wish to sound overly unkind to an entire discipline here, but I think in recent years there has arisen a perception that UX is a job which pays well and doesn't require any particularly hard skills: software development involves programming which is plainly quite challenging (and maybe requires being good at maths), design is very subjective, brutal (client feedback can be soul-crushing) and often la…

There's an independent certification being rolled out in London right now. Free udemy course and links to more info here: https://www.udemy.com/certificate-in-ux/

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rkalfane wrote: post #21

(Disclaimer: I'm a designer and I'm probably very biased about the matter) In my opinion it's very often a matter of expectations. When a lot of design decisions are taken by a bunch of people, from management, engineering and marketing, including a designer would simply mean having one more person to compromise with. Companies working this way tend to have designers focus more on making the product look good, thus t…

This. I'm not a designer, but my wife is (we met in a design studio I was prototyping for). We were just having this conversation yesterday about how design is "appreciated" in her company, basically going through every point you listed above. It takes a huge cultural change in a company to make something better than "design by engineer" desirable. Many companies want jack of all trade generalists who can code a bit and design a bit, meaning they can be reassigned easily enough to where the work happens to be at the moment. But at the end of the day, it's all mediocre output (though sadly, it is considered acceptable).

And then anyone who plays around with photoshop or illustrator for a few days seems to think they are ready for a visual design career (and interaction design is worse!). Who needs design school? So people encounter so many bad poorly trained and experienced designers that their expectations of the profession begin to be lowered. It is frustrating for those who actually went through hard work to become skilled and experienced UXDs.

I'm personally a PL designer and see the same issues in our field (well, it is very niche, and anyone who can write a compiler wants to design a language....).

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#37

Post by vonklaus »

The Mediumization of Writing

More and more people want to have an opinion and they use medium to share it with the world. This is killing my narrow view of content creation because I am able to asess every single users motivation. With such clarity, I have determined they are, like me, all experienced professionals with 10 years experience putting their best work forward. Have you seen the comments section? People who don't have a masters in literature from Columbia are actually displaying positive sentiment about this trash. This industry is dead because medium, and other blogging platforms, exist and it is much easier to create and piblish content. People are doing this as a hobby, or semi professionally and I don't like it.

Edit:

Re: The Dribbblisation of Design

#40

Post by mrdrozdov »

vonklaus wrote: post #37

The Mediumization of Writing More and more people want to have an opinion and they use medium to share it with the world. This is killing my narrow view of content creation because I am able to asess every single users motivation. With such clarity, I have determined they are, like me, all experienced professionals with 10 years experience putting their best work forward. Have you seen the comments section? People wh…

Can't forget the Githubization of Software.
Post reply on HN