4 ms·

This is the difference between developers and designers. And why so few designers participate in open-source. I'll never understand designers. I don't mean tha

by Touche 10y ago

This is the difference between developers and designers. And why so few designers participate in open-source. I'll never understand designers. I don't mean that as a criticism, I literally don't understand the mindset. This is my problem for not understanding.

nullcipher 10y ago
Totally agree. I don't get this either. If someone copies my software work, I don't go around calling them lazy. Even I spent all my weekends on this lovely piece of code, only for someone else to "steal" it.
- kentosi 10y ago
  What if that said someone copies your work you spent all your weekends working on and starts making a lot of money on it?
  - leojg 10y ago
    Then he/she clearly did something better than you. Had the insight that you lack.
    - optimuspaul 10y ago
      So you think it's ok to sit around wait for someone else to do all the hard work and then just copy what they did?
      - Giorgi 10y ago
        you must be kidding, copying someone else's HARD work is not easy, especially if you have to reverse-engineer it. And if you do, good for you.
      - gnahckire 10y ago
        Not if they cite their sources :)
ctvo 10y ago
You don't get that something proprietary was stolen and the creators are upset? From a software perspective you can't imagine how you'd feel if a critical piece of your business software was reversed engineered and copied by a competitor? An example might be finance and low latency trading. Or an ML / AI breakthrough. Or anything on the fringe still providing a competitive advantage and not a solved problem on Github yet. How can you paint such a broad stroke, like THOSE DESIGNERS, I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND THEM! With the implication being those designers aren't open and collaborative and willing to share and don't understand iterating in the open like us developers. The quote is from one specific designer.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Maybe I'm a bit too much of a STEM-headed engineer but I think you are making a false comparison. UX is fleeting. Even the best UX will grow stale over time as styles change, and it's style propagates (as it will if it is truly revolutionary) it will become mundane. Technology breakthroughs are hacks in the laws of physics. Humanity hasn't fundamentally redesigned the Steam Engine since James Watt. It just can't become more efficient. Nobody cares steam is mundane, or well understood. We still use it in nearly ever power plant. So no I don't stand why people feel the need to own something as fleeting as a singular moment in the pseudo-cultural-artistic space Product/UX design fits in knowing that it'll pass and forever be looked on as an out of style relic of a by-gone age. To do so honestly and earnestly makes you sound like a diva.
  - peyton 10y ago
    Trust me, a lot more work went into the iPhone's design than you'd think. One analogy is brute force searching for an approximate solution to an optimization problem. It's problematic when others take your solution if you did all the brute forcing. Design is only fleeting inasmuch as an approximation could be fleeting. Others build off an approximation to find better solutions. But without the earlier solution, we'd find ourselves in a much different part of the sample space.
- Touche 10y ago
  > From a software perspective you can't imagine how you'd feel if a critical piece of your business software was reversed engineered and copied by a competitor? Definitely, could definitely understand if it was about money/business. But that is never mentioned when designers get angry about their designs being stolen. I think it's not about money/business. I think it's a different mindset where a "stolen" design devalues your own contribution. A developer who makes a breakthrough never feels like their contribution is devalued if someone else copies your idea; quite the opposite, copies validates that you made a genuine breakthrough.
open-source-ux 10y ago
One reason that designers don't participate in open source is that they don't like the design-by-committee approach. On open source projects, everyone (understandably) wants a say in the visual and interaction design of the software. But while having many participants contributing to source code can work well, I don't think this model works well for design. It sounds really undemocratic (why shouldn't everyone have their say?). And it undoubtedly contributes to the sterotype of the designer as diva or precious about their work. But can you think of an open source project praised for it's visual and interaction design that was colloboratively develeoped with dozens or more participants? If you can, it will be an exception, not the rule. When there are too many participants in the design of a program, you end up with a project pulled in every direction and pleasing to no-one. But if you go the opposite route and limit design decisions to a dedicated UX team, you end up generating resentment from contributors or users who feel their input is being ignored (just look at Ubuntu for an example of this). From a designers perspective, either of these scenarios will seem like a no-win situation.

by Touche 10y ago

nullcipher 10y ago

Totally agree. I don't get this either. If someone copies my software work, I don't go around calling them lazy. Even I spent all my weekends on this lovely piece of code, only for someone else to "steal" it.

kentosi 10y ago
What if that said someone copies your work you spent all your weekends working on and starts making a lot of money on it?
- leojg 10y ago
  Then he/she clearly did something better than you. Had the insight that you lack.
  - optimuspaul 10y ago
    So you think it's ok to sit around wait for someone else to do all the hard work and then just copy what they did?
    - Giorgi 10y ago
      you must be kidding, copying someone else's HARD work is not easy, especially if you have to reverse-engineer it. And if you do, good for you.
    - gnahckire 10y ago
      Not if they cite their sources :)

ctvo 10y ago

You don't get that something proprietary was stolen and the creators are upset? From a software perspective you can't imagine how you'd feel if a critical piece of your business software was reversed engineered and copied by a competitor? An example might be finance and low latency trading. Or an ML / AI breakthrough. Or anything on the fringe still providing a competitive advantage and not a solved problem on Github yet. How can you paint such a broad stroke, like THOSE DESIGNERS, I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND THEM! With the implication being those designers aren't open and collaborative and willing to share and don't understand iterating in the open like us developers. The quote is from one specific designer.

valarauca1 10y ago
Maybe I'm a bit too much of a STEM-headed engineer but I think you are making a false comparison. UX is fleeting. Even the best UX will grow stale over time as styles change, and it's style propagates (as it will if it is truly revolutionary) it will become mundane. Technology breakthroughs are hacks in the laws of physics. Humanity hasn't fundamentally redesigned the Steam Engine since James Watt. It just can't become more efficient. Nobody cares steam is mundane, or well understood. We still use it in nearly ever power plant. So no I don't stand why people feel the need to own something as fleeting as a singular moment in the pseudo-cultural-artistic space Product/UX design fits in knowing that it'll pass and forever be looked on as an out of style relic of a by-gone age. To do so honestly and earnestly makes you sound like a diva.
- peyton 10y ago
  Trust me, a lot more work went into the iPhone's design than you'd think. One analogy is brute force searching for an approximate solution to an optimization problem. It's problematic when others take your solution if you did all the brute forcing. Design is only fleeting inasmuch as an approximation could be fleeting. Others build off an approximation to find better solutions. But without the earlier solution, we'd find ourselves in a much different part of the sample space.
Touche 10y ago
> From a software perspective you can't imagine how you'd feel if a critical piece of your business software was reversed engineered and copied by a competitor? Definitely, could definitely understand if it was about money/business. But that is never mentioned when designers get angry about their designs being stolen. I think it's not about money/business. I think it's a different mindset where a "stolen" design devalues your own contribution. A developer who makes a breakthrough never feels like their contribution is devalued if someone else copies your idea; quite the opposite, copies validates that you made a genuine breakthrough.

open-source-ux 10y ago

One reason that designers don't participate in open source is that they don't like the design-by-committee approach. On open source projects, everyone (understandably) wants a say in the visual and interaction design of the software. But while having many participants contributing to source code can work well, I don't think this model works well for design. It sounds really undemocratic (why shouldn't everyone have their say?). And it undoubtedly contributes to the sterotype of the designer as diva or precious about their work. But can you think of an open source project praised for it's visual and interaction design that was colloboratively develeoped with dozens or more participants? If you can, it will be an exception, not the rule. When there are too many participants in the design of a program, you end up with a project pulled in every direction and pleasing to no-one. But if you go the opposite route and limit design decisions to a dedicated UX team, you end up generating resentment from contributors or users who feel their input is being ignored (just look at Ubuntu for an example of this). From a designers perspective, either of these scenarios will seem like a no-win situation.