4 ms·

> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because... Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designer

> 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...
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      It seems like you changed your point then. If you meant to say that "it has nothing to do with web design" then you should have said that instead of trying to defend "competent web designers" as if competence actually had anything to do with it.
      - paulojreis 11y ago
        >You changed your point then. No, I did not and - if you don't mind - I would suggest you spend some more time reading and analysing, instead of skim-reading and assuming my argument matches one of the predefined "boxes" you have. See below: >If you meant to say that "it has nothing to do with web design" then you should have said that Well, I did. How explicit do I have to be? I said: "then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > instead of trying to defend "competent web designers" Defend competent web designers? Again, it's a matter of competence. I defended competence - either from designers, programmers or PMs, "whoever decides" (as I stated, very explicitly). > as if competence actually had anything to do with it. As if? This is starting to sound very troll-like behaviour. From the beginning, I made it clear that this was about competence.
        WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        As if competence in web design had anything to do with it. There's a subtle difference there. Rage harder though dude, it's Friday! Someone who bitterly states that "you know nothing about design" is obviously a web designer who is personally insulted by this article, who is obviously defending "web design competence". You've been arguing that "web design competence" is key here since you said that " 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". As if.... but no, they add things we don't like because they have to. That's all you had to say. I think we agree otherwise, so whatever no big deal...
        paulojreis 11y ago
        > You've been arguing that "web design competence" is key here since you said that " 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". I did not. That came from the "manifesto"; I quoted it to counterpoint. I know it's Friday, but - come on - a little more attention. :)

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...
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    It seems like you changed your point then. If you meant to say that "it has nothing to do with web design" then you should have said that instead of trying to defend "competent web designers" as if competence actually had anything to do with it.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      >You changed your point then. No, I did not and - if you don't mind - I would suggest you spend some more time reading and analysing, instead of skim-reading and assuming my argument matches one of the predefined "boxes" you have. See below: >If you meant to say that "it has nothing to do with web design" then you should have said that Well, I did. How explicit do I have to be? I said: "then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > instead of trying to defend "competent web designers" Defend competent web designers? Again, it's a matter of competence. I defended competence - either from designers, programmers or PMs, "whoever decides" (as I stated, very explicitly). > as if competence actually had anything to do with it. As if? This is starting to sound very troll-like behaviour. From the beginning, I made it clear that this was about competence.
      - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        As if competence in web design had anything to do with it. There's a subtle difference there. Rage harder though dude, it's Friday! Someone who bitterly states that "you know nothing about design" is obviously a web designer who is personally insulted by this article, who is obviously defending "web design competence". You've been arguing that "web design competence" is key here since you said that " 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". As if.... but no, they add things we don't like because they have to. That's all you had to say. I think we agree otherwise, so whatever no big deal...
        paulojreis 11y ago
        > You've been arguing that "web design competence" is key here since you said that " 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". I did not. That came from the "manifesto"; I quoted it to counterpoint. I know it's Friday, but - come on - a little more attention. :)