38 ms·

> With regards to visual design, the fact is that any individual has a far better idea of what constitutes comfortable-to-read text for them than a designer cou

> With regards to visual design, the fact is that any individual has a far better idea of what constitutes comfortable-to-read text for them than a designer could. A designer either designing for his or her own tastes or trying to find some best-of-all-worlds design will ultimately fail to satisfy the vast majority of visitors to the sit > Designers, it may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone loves your work. Computer scientist, it may come as a surprise to you, but there are competent people outside of your field of expertise. You're not a genius, and everyone else isn't stupid. If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses to have custom fonts, client-side scripting or custom style sheets, it's because he weighted the downsides of said choice and still opted for it. If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design. So, your pseudo-manifesto should be anti-incompetence, not anti-web-design. Being "anti-web-design" only tells us that a) you know nothing about design (you don't have the smallest idea regarding methodology or even simply what a designer actually does); and b) it's no more than a rant - all your valid points (which are a few) are obscured by the arrogant and oblivious attitude.

ThomPete 11y ago
I think you are judging this on the wrong premise. It's a manifesto not a lecture it's even an anti-web-design manifesto. I for one appreciate someone trying to establish other perspectives than my own. Yes we designers know a lot that he doesn't, but a trip to Dribbble will tell you that there are also many of us who are victims of some of the patterns he is trying to establish an opposition against.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  > Yes we designers know a lot that he doesn't, but a trip to Dribbble will tell you that there are also many of us who are victims of some of the patterns he is trying to establish an opposition against. Still, that's a problem with incompetence, not with web design. And Dribbble it's not a good example at all - what's the ratio of pixel-pushers to designers? 10:1? 100:1? I wouldn't say that it's a problem with "us", since it's clearly a separate group which deserves addressing. There are designers who actually "design" (meaning, they conceive a solution to "someone"), and there are pixel-pushers which mix and mash the latest fads without any particular regard for users and their context (elderly? Here, take flat design! Teens? Flat will do!). These are two completely distinct objectives: designing vs. doing "something" which looks good. I think the "manifesto" is - or should - be aimed at the latter: gratuitous usage of UI elements/patterns/options. But that's not what design is about, so the "manifesto" is totally misguided and - to be honest - it even becomes ridiculous when the author starts to speak condescendingly to designers (as in the example in my original replies), while being completely oblivious that "design" in itself would imply that any of the options he criticizes were adequately considered (against users and their context).
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because... Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. (and I'd argue thtat most professional web designers are bound by many, many requirements that they can't even change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins) Everybody has a right to their opinion and obviously a lot of people don't like the way the web is being "designed" or else we wouldn't have scores of plugins used by millions of people to block or change things they don't like.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I'm under the impression that you haven't read, at least fully, my reply. > Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. That's why, after the portion you quoted, I added an addendum: "If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > Most professional designers are bound by requirements that they can't change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins ... and that's why I added, exactly in the portion you quoted, a parenthesis stating "or whoever decides". How could it be clearer? If "whoever decides" decided for any of these options, it's because he considered it outweighed the "cons" (so, by design), or he didn't considered the "cons" (so, by incompetence).
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    I read it. You think "whoever" decided that their web page needs intrusive advertising, tracking, etc. did it in consideration of pros and cons... but with regards to the user experience? I doubt it. They're thinking about money and that's it.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      Does it matter? What's at stake here is the manifesto being pinpointed at web design. If, whoever decides, decided that he should sacrifice UX for ads/tracking/whatever, then either he did it knowingly or unknowingly (so, a problem of competence). Either way, it's not solved by being against web design, it's solved by being against incompetence - in web design, in UX, in product decisions, whatever. How can you blame "web designing" if someone decides that intrusive ads outweigh the UX cons or if someone doesn't even consider said cons? That's my point here - this is not a matter of web design, being anti-web design is misguided and futile. The problem is not web design, the problem is: frivolous or oblivious decision-making, lack of knowledge and consideration about whoever uses the digital product being designed, lack of knowledge about design process, lack of knowledge about design "elements" (layout, color, typography), lack of knowledge of the implications of using extensive e.g. JS...

ThomPete 11y ago

I think you are judging this on the wrong premise. It's a manifesto not a lecture it's even an anti-web-design manifesto. I for one appreciate someone trying to establish other perspectives than my own. Yes we designers know a lot that he doesn't, but a trip to Dribbble will tell you that there are also many of us who are victims of some of the patterns he is trying to establish an opposition against.

paulojreis 11y ago
> Yes we designers know a lot that he doesn't, but a trip to Dribbble will tell you that there are also many of us who are victims of some of the patterns he is trying to establish an opposition against. Still, that's a problem with incompetence, not with web design. And Dribbble it's not a good example at all - what's the ratio of pixel-pushers to designers? 10:1? 100:1? I wouldn't say that it's a problem with "us", since it's clearly a separate group which deserves addressing. There are designers who actually "design" (meaning, they conceive a solution to "someone"), and there are pixel-pushers which mix and mash the latest fads without any particular regard for users and their context (elderly? Here, take flat design! Teens? Flat will do!). These are two completely distinct objectives: designing vs. doing "something" which looks good. I think the "manifesto" is - or should - be aimed at the latter: gratuitous usage of UI elements/patterns/options. But that's not what design is about, so the "manifesto" is totally misguided and - to be honest - it even becomes ridiculous when the author starts to speak condescendingly to designers (as in the example in my original replies), while being completely oblivious that "design" in itself would imply that any of the options he criticizes were adequately considered (against users and their context).

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because... Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. (and I'd argue thtat most professional web designers are bound by many, many requirements that they can't even change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins) Everybody has a right to their opinion and obviously a lot of people don't like the way the web is being "designed" or else we wouldn't have scores of plugins used by millions of people to block or change things they don't like.

paulojreis 11y ago
I'm under the impression that you haven't read, at least fully, my reply. > Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. That's why, after the portion you quoted, I added an addendum: "If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > Most professional designers are bound by requirements that they can't change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins ... and that's why I added, exactly in the portion you quoted, a parenthesis stating "or whoever decides". How could it be clearer? If "whoever decides" decided for any of these options, it's because he considered it outweighed the "cons" (so, by design), or he didn't considered the "cons" (so, by incompetence).
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  I read it. You think "whoever" decided that their web page needs intrusive advertising, tracking, etc. did it in consideration of pros and cons... but with regards to the user experience? I doubt it. They're thinking about money and that's it.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    Does it matter? What's at stake here is the manifesto being pinpointed at web design. If, whoever decides, decided that he should sacrifice UX for ads/tracking/whatever, then either he did it knowingly or unknowingly (so, a problem of competence). Either way, it's not solved by being against web design, it's solved by being against incompetence - in web design, in UX, in product decisions, whatever. How can you blame "web designing" if someone decides that intrusive ads outweigh the UX cons or if someone doesn't even consider said cons? That's my point here - this is not a matter of web design, being anti-web design is misguided and futile. The problem is not web design, the problem is: frivolous or oblivious decision-making, lack of knowledge and consideration about whoever uses the digital product being designed, lack of knowledge about design process, lack of knowledge about design "elements" (layout, color, typography), lack of knowledge of the implications of using extensive e.g. JS...