3 ms·

I am a hacker, not a decorator - Design candies are not for me

33 points by Sparklin 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago
Perhaps a bit combative, but yeah, he's got a good point about pretty over functional
- Sparklin 16y ago
  Ya, I think he was pissed at designers makeing non-functional "pretty" sites
  - _delirium 16y ago
    That's not as common as it used to be, is it? I do still run into sites that annoy me, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was during the first wave of "this entire site will be in Flash because that lets us do cool design stuff" web design.
    - kingsidharth 16y ago
      Well now they have a new one. "Let's make it web 2.0" And what they mean is more 'gradients and bigger buttons'. Instead of more 'easy to interact and find a way to connect" (true spirit of web 2.0)
      - jamesteow 16y ago
        Web 2.0 could also be construed as a philosophical and artistic (pertaining to visual style) movement.
wccrawford 16y ago
The car door analogy is faulty. A designer spent a lot of time making that car door look pretty -after- an engineer made it work. It isn't that exact shape just because it works.
- kingsidharth 16y ago
  Made it work - if you are talking about "Internal mechanics" well yah he did. But that's not all of 'How it works' The way it is shaped and crafted has a reason - that's design (not beauty). Though reason creates beauty.
- dkokelley 16y ago
  I disagree. The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door. In essence, the engineer 'designed' the door. The author's argument is that design refers to functionality and usability - not only aesthetic appeal. Yes, appealing colors and gradients make the site easier on the eyes, and should be included as a subset of the entire design process. My interpretation is that design encompasses all UI interactions, and the author feels that too many self-described designers defer to the aesthetics while underplaying other important considerations like usability and intuitiveness, even though the title of designer implies (or should imply) those.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door. Did an engineer design that, or did the equivalent of an interaction designer do it?
    - dkokelley 16y ago
      A car door analogy is weak, simply because I don't know enough about how they are designed and built. Maybe an artist goes to town, and then the engineers and interaction team have to bend over backwards to make the concept work (probably a bad way go about making car doors!). Still my point is that aesthetics, functionality, and usability are all subsets of design (according to the author).
- zalew 16y ago
  Actually that's completely not how cars are designed. Design comes, then come the engineers, then come the clerks, multiply that by a lot of iterations and you got the car which looks far different from the first concept. A car is a great example how a fantastic design in terms of aesthetics can fail against engineers' (or economics) limitations. A quite recent example: BMW X6's tail lights were sent back to redesign after engineers found out that one 'beauty' line caused Cx (aerodynamics factor) increase. Imagine it happens all the time during the design process which takes years, not days.
egometry 16y ago
If you follow delicious hotlist, you'll find some of the unusable-but-pretty designs he mentions... but you'll find more of the pretty-but-usable ones. The usable get rewarded for their usability by being used.
- kingsidharth 16y ago
  No true-er words were every spoken before. Thanks for throwing this perspective man. Now I know I really should stop caring about CSS Galleries and 'make it pretty designer gatherings' A designer's true reward is 'used'.
Dramatize 16y ago
Here are a few pretty and functional designs (in my opinion): http://www.airbnb.com/ http://www.airbnb.com/ http://www.flickr.com/ http://www.flickr.com/ http://carbonmade.com/ http://carbonmade.com/ http://tenderapp.com/ http://tenderapp.com/ http://new.myfonts.com http://new.myfonts.com http://www.made.com/ http://www.made.com/
- pyre 16y ago
  > http://new.myfonts.com Way too busy.
d0m 16y ago
In my experience, pretty wins over functional. I'm the first to be saddened by that but it's true.
- zalew 16y ago
  like gmail or google docs are pretty? or youtube player? or google.com?
ThomPete 16y ago
Some people would claim that his own site is over-designed and too pretty. He isn't exactly following the Bauhaus tradition himself. Pretty can be functional, in fact pretty is functional. Pretty is about expression and exploration. Pretty doesn't solve it all alone but neither does function. Would you critique a blogger because his posts where way too philosophical and reflective rather than utilitarian? Would you critique a developer for creating experiments in HTML5 that have no utility? I would agree with him if HP, Amazon, BP and all the other fortune 500 companies where pretty over functional but they are not. His argument is based on sites who's purpose is to be explorative and expressive not purely functional. Design is not about style, but style is a tool the designer can use.
- kingsidharth 16y ago
  There is a difference between experimenting and intention. Experiments are fine but this is more about what you put in practice. Anyways, I don't critique their experiment but their intention. If you experiment to make it 'prettier' then it's a fail. Experiment to make it more functional. Your point "functional is pretty" - is very true. Nothing better than the thing that works.
  - Sparklin 16y ago
    I think it works even if you experiment to make it "prettier" only because its meant to be an experiment. Pretty might not work if put in actual use, because it is no longer an experiment.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their intention? Judging intention is probably the least useful form of argument. Why should it be a fail to experiment with making it prettier? What exactly is wrong with that? You are falling victim to your own critique. You are judging based on your subjective opinion about some ones intentions. Which is fine. Just don't claim it to be somehow a more rational argument.
    - 16y ago
jforman 16y ago
If the designers you work with prefer "pretty" over "usable," then you should find better designers. I've worked with plenty who do not fit this tunnel-vision visual designer stereotype. The article is based on a false dichotomy that's part of the unending design v. engineering meta-argument. "Best design is ugly – and it works"? Rather, the best design works - and is pretty.
- kingsidharth 16y ago
  I guess I messed up with words here. Pretty v/s Decoration. Rephrasing: "Best design is not decorated – and it works. + It is pretty, because it works."
nayanshah 16y ago
Hackers are good at design too, but not in the visual aspect but in the structural and architectural ones. Hackers do strive for simplicity and elegance in the smallest hack. Best example is of Unix. It has this inherent "design" in it, which makes it appealing to all hackers. Add a layout of awesome UI and you have the Mac. All the rich features with a decent packaging.

33 points by Sparklin 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago

Perhaps a bit combative, but yeah, he's got a good point about pretty over functional

Sparklin 16y ago
Ya, I think he was pissed at designers makeing non-functional "pretty" sites
- _delirium 16y ago
  That's not as common as it used to be, is it? I do still run into sites that annoy me, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was during the first wave of "this entire site will be in Flash because that lets us do cool design stuff" web design.
  - kingsidharth 16y ago
    Well now they have a new one. "Let's make it web 2.0" And what they mean is more 'gradients and bigger buttons'. Instead of more 'easy to interact and find a way to connect" (true spirit of web 2.0)
    - jamesteow 16y ago
      Web 2.0 could also be construed as a philosophical and artistic (pertaining to visual style) movement.

wccrawford 16y ago

The car door analogy is faulty. A designer spent a lot of time making that car door look pretty -after- an engineer made it work. It isn't that exact shape just because it works.

kingsidharth 16y ago
Made it work - if you are talking about "Internal mechanics" well yah he did. But that's not all of 'How it works' The way it is shaped and crafted has a reason - that's design (not beauty). Though reason creates beauty.
dkokelley 16y ago
I disagree. The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door. In essence, the engineer 'designed' the door. The author's argument is that design refers to functionality and usability - not only aesthetic appeal. Yes, appealing colors and gradients make the site easier on the eyes, and should be included as a subset of the entire design process. My interpretation is that design encompasses all UI interactions, and the author feels that too many self-described designers defer to the aesthetics while underplaying other important considerations like usability and intuitiveness, even though the title of designer implies (or should imply) those.
- kelnos 16y ago
  The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms, positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move the door. Did an engineer design that, or did the equivalent of an interaction designer do it?
  - dkokelley 16y ago
    A car door analogy is weak, simply because I don't know enough about how they are designed and built. Maybe an artist goes to town, and then the engineers and interaction team have to bend over backwards to make the concept work (probably a bad way go about making car doors!). Still my point is that aesthetics, functionality, and usability are all subsets of design (according to the author).
zalew 16y ago
Actually that's completely not how cars are designed. Design comes, then come the engineers, then come the clerks, multiply that by a lot of iterations and you got the car which looks far different from the first concept. A car is a great example how a fantastic design in terms of aesthetics can fail against engineers' (or economics) limitations. A quite recent example: BMW X6's tail lights were sent back to redesign after engineers found out that one 'beauty' line caused Cx (aerodynamics factor) increase. Imagine it happens all the time during the design process which takes years, not days.

egometry 16y ago

If you follow delicious hotlist, you'll find some of the unusable-but-pretty designs he mentions... but you'll find more of the pretty-but-usable ones. The usable get rewarded for their usability by being used.

kingsidharth 16y ago
No true-er words were every spoken before. Thanks for throwing this perspective man. Now I know I really should stop caring about CSS Galleries and 'make it pretty designer gatherings' A designer's true reward is 'used'.

Dramatize 16y ago

Here are a few pretty and functional designs (in my opinion): http://www.airbnb.com/ http://www.airbnb.com/ http://www.flickr.com/ http://www.flickr.com/ http://carbonmade.com/ http://carbonmade.com/ http://tenderapp.com/ http://tenderapp.com/ http://new.myfonts.com http://new.myfonts.com http://www.made.com/ http://www.made.com/

pyre 16y ago
> http://new.myfonts.com Way too busy.

d0m 16y ago

In my experience, pretty wins over functional. I'm the first to be saddened by that but it's true.

zalew 16y ago
like gmail or google docs are pretty? or youtube player? or google.com?

ThomPete 16y ago

Some people would claim that his own site is over-designed and too pretty. He isn't exactly following the Bauhaus tradition himself. Pretty can be functional, in fact pretty is functional. Pretty is about expression and exploration. Pretty doesn't solve it all alone but neither does function. Would you critique a blogger because his posts where way too philosophical and reflective rather than utilitarian? Would you critique a developer for creating experiments in HTML5 that have no utility? I would agree with him if HP, Amazon, BP and all the other fortune 500 companies where pretty over functional but they are not. His argument is based on sites who's purpose is to be explorative and expressive not purely functional. Design is not about style, but style is a tool the designer can use.

kingsidharth 16y ago
There is a difference between experimenting and intention. Experiments are fine but this is more about what you put in practice. Anyways, I don't critique their experiment but their intention. If you experiment to make it 'prettier' then it's a fail. Experiment to make it more functional. Your point "functional is pretty" - is very true. Nothing better than the thing that works.
- Sparklin 16y ago
  I think it works even if you experiment to make it "prettier" only because its meant to be an experiment. Pretty might not work if put in actual use, because it is no longer an experiment.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their intention? Judging intention is probably the least useful form of argument. Why should it be a fail to experiment with making it prettier? What exactly is wrong with that? You are falling victim to your own critique. You are judging based on your subjective opinion about some ones intentions. Which is fine. Just don't claim it to be somehow a more rational argument.
  - 16y ago

jforman 16y ago

If the designers you work with prefer "pretty" over "usable," then you should find better designers. I've worked with plenty who do not fit this tunnel-vision visual designer stereotype. The article is based on a false dichotomy that's part of the unending design v. engineering meta-argument. "Best design is ugly – and it works"? Rather, the best design works - and is pretty.

kingsidharth 16y ago
I guess I messed up with words here. Pretty v/s Decoration. Rephrasing: "Best design is not decorated – and it works. + It is pretty, because it works."

nayanshah 16y ago

Hackers are good at design too, but not in the visual aspect but in the structural and architectural ones. Hackers do strive for simplicity and elegance in the smallest hack. Best example is of Unix. It has this inherent "design" in it, which makes it appealing to all hackers. Add a layout of awesome UI and you have the Mac. All the rich features with a decent packaging.