3 ms·

The article keeps going on about creativity without giving a single reason why anyone would want that. Not everything needs to be original, not everything needs

The article keeps going on about creativity without giving a single reason why anyone would want that. Not everything needs to be original, not everything needs creativity. Some (most?) websites just need to work -- i.e. present the content in a readable manner. I'm not sure if relative offsets on colored rectangular backgrounds help much. Seriously, most of the examples look worse than the supposedly obsolete bootstrap templates.

asark 8y ago
A key miss with the print vs. digital design is that digital's interactive, and you don't usually see the whole thing at once. Plus, you know, screen sizes. "Unique" may be attention-grabbing, it may look nice, and it may help you peacock "we are with-it and well-funded enough to spend money keeping up with design trends" but it's gonna harm UX more often than not. It was nice when every site settled on the header-sidebar-footer two- to three-column layout. You knew where stuff would be. "Bootstrap" design is nice (though often less-nice than old-school column layouts, at least on desktop, because more spread out and less predictable) for similar reasons. This stuff for "experience" sites is one thing. For anything else it's, as mentioned above, peacock-signaling over usability. Often the flourish-filled stuff is outright broken on some not-uncommon browser and platform combos—I saw a Tesla marketing site the other day that's broken on Safari on MacOS—though that's more common when they screw with interactions than layouts, but often the two go hand-in-hand. I have no doubt this will be A Thing. In the overwhelming majority of cases it's used, it will harm UX. It looks expensive to do right across platforms and screen sizes, and will probably be done wrong (i.e. be broken) more often than not. So the cycle continues.

3 ms·

The article keeps going on about creativity without giving a single reason why anyone would want that. Not everything needs to be original, not everything needs

by def_true_false 8y ago

asark 8y ago
A key miss with the print vs. digital design is that digital's interactive, and you don't usually see the whole thing at once. Plus, you know, screen sizes. "Unique" may be attention-grabbing, it may look nice, and it may help you peacock "we are with-it and well-funded enough to spend money keeping up with design trends" but it's gonna harm UX more often than not. It was nice when every site settled on the header-sidebar-footer two- to three-column layout. You knew where stuff would be. "Bootstrap" design is nice (though often less-nice than old-school column layouts, at least on desktop, because more spread out and less predictable) for similar reasons. This stuff for "experience" sites is one thing. For anything else it's, as mentioned above, peacock-signaling over usability. Often the flourish-filled stuff is outright broken on some not-uncommon browser and platform combos—I saw a Tesla marketing site the other day that's broken on Safari on MacOS—though that's more common when they screw with interactions than layouts, but often the two go hand-in-hand. I have no doubt this will be A Thing. In the overwhelming majority of cases it's used, it will harm UX. It looks expensive to do right across platforms and screen sizes, and will probably be done wrong (i.e. be broken) more often than not. So the cycle continues.