5 ms·
I really like reading design critics like this one. It's detailed and most points are well supported. I stopped reading though when the OP offered his "better"
by cedsav 16y ago
I really like reading design critics like this one. It's detailed and most points are well supported. I stopped reading though when the OP offered his "better" version.
It's not that his version is bad but redesigns by outsiders necessarily introduce their own new flaws. They don't know what constraints drive a specific design, so there's little to learn from a mockup that fixes, say a white space issue, but did not consider if usability or conversion rate could be impacted.
- Qz 16y agoThe "stopped reading" jab is getting kind of tired. Really? It was that offensive that you couldn't bear to read another sentence? If you had, you might have realized that the guy acknowledged straight out that his admittedly uninformed re-design would probably introduce it's own flaws, but that the main point was to show how some of the flaws he did identify could be addressed, not as some evangelical "better" version.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- cedsav 16y agoIt wasn't offensive and I wasn't offended. Sometimes it's a better use of my time to stop reading an article half-way. Anyhow, this post is in the same vein as the AA redesign by Dustin Curtis. The criticism is interesting and useful. The complete redesign attempts are however a step too far. IMHO. You can't suggest solutions to identified flaws by completing changing the parameters of the problem. (I'm not specifically talking about OP here, it's more about redesign posts in general.)