3 ms·

From a marketing perspective, we kept getting really excited seeing screen resolutions rise and font rendering improve for our audience. Now designers can just

by tcdent 11y ago

From a marketing perspective, we kept getting really excited seeing screen resolutions rise and font rendering improve for our audience. Now designers can just design, not "for-web", which used to be a very restrictive medium compared to what could be achieved with a pixel editor. We realize some strange folks somewhere are still running IE6, but they aren't the ones responding to our campaigns anyway.

blub 11y ago
Somewhere along the way designers forgot that design is not just about pretty things, but also being able to comfortably use the said things.
xorcist 11y ago
Or as they said ten years ago: "Did you know your web page is unreadable in Firefox?" "Yeah, but our analysis shows very few of our visitors use Firefox."
- tcdent 11y ago
  But really, it's the only sane way. Sorry, my QA guy is not going to test with Konqueror just because you happen to like it.
  - brainfire 11y ago
    I imagine my electric company sees low usage of Chrome- because their site doesn't actually allow you to log in using Chrome.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
This is why people don't like marketers. It honestly doesn't even occur to you that there's a problem with e.g. screwing over vision-impaired users, because as a small minority not responsible for many ad click-throughs. "The right thing" begins and ends with money, and you don't even have enough moral compass to realize that normal people don't feel the same way.
- tcdent 11y ago
  You must not live in the same world I do. I get paid to show people messaging they want to see. Do you get paid by vision-impaired users to represent them? Great! Do that. And this nonsense about design ignoring the vision impaired is misinformed. Now that we're able to accurately represent content using the full spectrum of HTML, accessibility is better than ever. Most of the sites I build these days have very little ineffective syntax. Disable the stylesheet entirely, if you're into living like it's 1999, and you'll still be able to see the content. You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you!
  - scintill76 11y ago
    > You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you! One of the reasons I minimize my use of web apps (e.g., Gmail) is because I got tired and frustrated with the re-styling every 6-12 months; where I was no longer comfortable just because it didn't look the same; and I was no longer efficient because it was all re-organized; and I was annoyed because I was having conscious thoughts about the interface, instead of just using it to get stuff done. (This happens to a lesser extent with desktop apps, but at least I can avoid updating, etc.) Did someone consciously decide their product was no longer for me, so they didn't care what I think? Will they care if their decisions make me stop using their product? I'm hesitant to accept the opinionated, brusque ideas about design being thrown around here, but even if I did, they don't seem to account for the effects of evolving the product while the userbase stays the same. I get the idea of incremental progress, but can you seriously believe that every change is good and is worth the costs? Yesterday, we missed the mark with skeuomorphism, today we know we need to throw it all out, and then we will have achieved perfection!
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    See, this is exactly what I mean. You don't seem to be aware that it's possible for there to be a difference between "good design" and "maximize immediate profits." This is why shoddy clickbait is taking over the web.

by tcdent 11y ago

blub 11y ago

Somewhere along the way designers forgot that design is not just about pretty things, but also being able to comfortably use the said things.

xorcist 11y ago

Or as they said ten years ago: "Did you know your web page is unreadable in Firefox?" "Yeah, but our analysis shows very few of our visitors use Firefox."

tcdent 11y ago
But really, it's the only sane way. Sorry, my QA guy is not going to test with Konqueror just because you happen to like it.
- brainfire 11y ago
  I imagine my electric company sees low usage of Chrome- because their site doesn't actually allow you to log in using Chrome.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

This is why people don't like marketers. It honestly doesn't even occur to you that there's a problem with e.g. screwing over vision-impaired users, because as a small minority not responsible for many ad click-throughs. "The right thing" begins and ends with money, and you don't even have enough moral compass to realize that normal people don't feel the same way.

tcdent 11y ago
You must not live in the same world I do. I get paid to show people messaging they want to see. Do you get paid by vision-impaired users to represent them? Great! Do that. And this nonsense about design ignoring the vision impaired is misinformed. Now that we're able to accurately represent content using the full spectrum of HTML, accessibility is better than ever. Most of the sites I build these days have very little ineffective syntax. Disable the stylesheet entirely, if you're into living like it's 1999, and you'll still be able to see the content. You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you!
- scintill76 11y ago
  > You may not care for an ultramodern brand's style, but that only tells you one thing: it's not for you! One of the reasons I minimize my use of web apps (e.g., Gmail) is because I got tired and frustrated with the re-styling every 6-12 months; where I was no longer comfortable just because it didn't look the same; and I was no longer efficient because it was all re-organized; and I was annoyed because I was having conscious thoughts about the interface, instead of just using it to get stuff done. (This happens to a lesser extent with desktop apps, but at least I can avoid updating, etc.) Did someone consciously decide their product was no longer for me, so they didn't care what I think? Will they care if their decisions make me stop using their product? I'm hesitant to accept the opinionated, brusque ideas about design being thrown around here, but even if I did, they don't seem to account for the effects of evolving the product while the userbase stays the same. I get the idea of incremental progress, but can you seriously believe that every change is good and is worth the costs? Yesterday, we missed the mark with skeuomorphism, today we know we need to throw it all out, and then we will have achieved perfection!
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  See, this is exactly what I mean. You don't seem to be aware that it's possible for there to be a difference between "good design" and "maximize immediate profits." This is why shoddy clickbait is taking over the web.