I'm a little confused by the thesis of the article, and how it relates to the title. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is the thrust of the facts: * The Andro

I'm a little confused by the thesis of the article, and how it relates to the title. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is the thrust of the facts: * The Android design team describes their design process. * In their description, they cite a paper that suggests giving people at least 3 positive experiences for every negative experience they have. * That paper was debunked. How does that translate to "much of the 'science' used in design is bullshit"? That bogus paper they cited doesn't affect the actual content of Android's design; it just influenced the team's design process. How is that bad? How does that discredit all the other things they talk about? The FastCompany article[1] linked from this blog post says: > the CliffsNotes version is that Google creates design mantras from the point of view of the user, like “keep it brief,” “delight me in surprising ways,” and “it’s not my fault.” Each time an Android feature lives up to these expectations, they get a single marble in the good emotion jar. But every time they fail, that bad feature produces three marbles in the bad emotion jar. The marbles illustrate that bad ideas stack up quickly. Even if this heuristic isn't scientifically proven, does it really result in worse UX than if you don't use the heuristic? I just don't get the vitriol. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1672657/google-s-dead-simple-tool-for-making-ux-decisions-2-jars-of-marbles https://www.fastcompany.com/1672657/google-s-dead-simple-too...