3 ms·

Let's have a look at the meat of that excerpt: > It was like someone put on a blindfold, drank a fifth of whiskey, spun around 100 times, got kicked in the fac

by Cyph0n 9y ago

Let's have a look at the meat of that excerpt: > It was like someone put on a blindfold, drank a fifth of whiskey, spun around 100 times, got kicked in the face by a mule (the person who designed this definitely has a mule living with them inside their house) and then just started puking numbers and letters onto the boarding pass at random (yes, I realize that a human didn't lay this out, if a human had, judging by the train-wreck of design, they would have surely used papyrus). There was nothing given size or color importance over anything else, it was a mess. Notice that only the last sentence attempted to actually critique the current design. Every single word before that was absolutely useless. So no, if you actually read it properly, the excerpt doesn't even present a weak argument for why boarding passes should be redesigned. Small anecdote: in my 15 years of flying using 5+ international carriers, I have never once had trouble getting the most important information from my boarding pass (gate and seat numbers).

ryandrake 9y ago
The problem with these design critiques is that they are usually very subjective, and provide little rationale for the proposed changes rather than "it's better" in some nebulous way. How about having a bake-off between the old design and the new design, measuring actual business metrics. Does the new design move the needle on things that actually matter to the business? The airlines no doubt have business measurements around boarding speed, airline employee efficiency, etc. A/B test the old and new design and then if the new design outperforms the old, then you have the start of a cost benefit analysis. When I used to write mobile apps I'd always butt-heads with the UX designers who would say things like "this control is more usable" and "we should go with a warmer color here". Great, prove it! Test the 41 shades of blue[1]! Measure your hypothesis vs. what we have. If the new design's better usability will bring in more revenue than the old one, we should have no problem justifying it. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01marissa.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01marissa.html
jlg23 9y ago
> Notice that only the last sentence attempted to actually critique the current design. Every single word before that was absolutely useless. [... ] the excerpt doesn't even present a weak argument for why boarding passes should be redesigned It does? ~"The information important to the passenger does not stand out." The introductory rant may not suit your taste, but it can be a pleasant reading for people who don't feel personally offended by it. And, in my opinion, for a blog post, the signal to noise ratio is actually pretty good.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Nope, that's simply wrong; the important information does stand out. Look at the original pass at the top of the post. What is the most important information? Is it emphasized more than the rest of the information on the boarding pass?

by Cyph0n 9y ago

ryandrake 9y ago

The problem with these design critiques is that they are usually very subjective, and provide little rationale for the proposed changes rather than "it's better" in some nebulous way. How about having a bake-off between the old design and the new design, measuring actual business metrics. Does the new design move the needle on things that actually matter to the business? The airlines no doubt have business measurements around boarding speed, airline employee efficiency, etc. A/B test the old and new design and then if the new design outperforms the old, then you have the start of a cost benefit analysis. When I used to write mobile apps I'd always butt-heads with the UX designers who would say things like "this control is more usable" and "we should go with a warmer color here". Great, prove it! Test the 41 shades of blue[1]! Measure your hypothesis vs. what we have. If the new design's better usability will bring in more revenue than the old one, we should have no problem justifying it. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01marissa.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01marissa.html

jlg23 9y ago

> Notice that only the last sentence attempted to actually critique the current design. Every single word before that was absolutely useless. [... ] the excerpt doesn't even present a weak argument for why boarding passes should be redesigned It does? ~"The information important to the passenger does not stand out." The introductory rant may not suit your taste, but it can be a pleasant reading for people who don't feel personally offended by it. And, in my opinion, for a blog post, the signal to noise ratio is actually pretty good.

Cyph0n 9y ago
Nope, that's simply wrong; the important information does stand out. Look at the original pass at the top of the post. What is the most important information? Is it emphasized more than the rest of the information on the boarding pass?