3 ms·
As a coding designer, there's a two-edged sword here. 1) Considering the costs of implementation limits the space of possible designs thus reducing originality
by tel 17y ago
As a coding designer, there's a two-edged sword here.
1) Considering the costs of implementation limits the space of possible designs thus reducing originality.
2) Considering the costs of implementation limits the space of possible designs thus inspiring creation.
Which is just an obnoxious way to say that sometimes it's pretty damn useful to design things that are hard to implement. If you're too tied to the CSS, you won't try dumb enough things often enough and that's a direct line to insipid design.
- btilly 17y agoIf there is value to designing something that is hard to implement, by all means do so. I don't object to that. But when there are two designs that are equally good, start with the easier to implement one. If you know how to code, then you'll have a sense which one that is. If not then you'll consistently make things unnecessarily hard to do.
- tel 17y agoIn my experience, that's not how design works. You don't "start" with any design. Eventually you whittle your way through a bunch (100s?) of bad designs to something you want to spend the effort to perfect. And at this point, I agree. If you know how to code you can use the principles of practicality to guide your final decision to a design that fits the medium. But I'm always starting with pen and paper drawing things that could never exist in your browser. I think it's integral.