3 ms·
> Unlike software development, where you can improve things here and there incrementally, with design you need to have an overall view of what you want to do, w
by umvi 7y ago
> Unlike software development, where you can improve things here and there incrementally, with design you need to have an overall view of what you want to do, where you want to get, how the final product should look.
There's a downside to this too though. Take swagger-ui[1] for example. A few years ago I installed it at my company. It was great. Then managers wanted more features, so I peaked into the source and found it wasn't too hard to augment the HTML/JS. I added a search bar to filter HTTP APIs by dynamically altering the JSON document. I added a button to generate a PDF. I added a drop down to select release version from a database. It was quick and easy and hackable.
Then they got sponsored and redesigned it from the ground up "professionally" using React. I recently tried to upgrade to the latest version and... the level of complexity has gone up several orders of magnitude. Whereas before I just opened index.html and started hacking, now there isn't an index.html at all. It's all a labyrinthine nest of components and configuration files that somehow get magically compiled and bundled with some build process and I have no idea how to even start porting my features over.
I suppose it all makes sense to full-time React developers, but seeing as I mainly work in embedded Linux drivers, I don't really have a desire to learn React since I was previously coerced into learning AngularJS which I now regret.
So I guess my point is: if you pull in professional designers to design your FOSS, it may become less accessible and hackable for non-designers like me.
[1] https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-ui https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-ui
- b1ur 7y agoTwo very different schools of thought I suppose. There's definitely a lot to be said for OSS that is quick and easy that can be flexible and modified by the end-user. It's also very nice to have source code that is readable (and of course auditable) by as many folks as possible, but I'll admit that I'm a sucker for complex (well-architected) polished codebases.
- iudqnolq 7y agoI don't understand how professional designers lead to React. It sounds like funding let to more complex design and more complex development, but those two don't lead to each other. I highly doubt many professional designers will insist that you have to implement their design with a specific library, much less do so themselves.
- umvi 7y agoProfessionals are going to use the latest and greatest tools at their disposal, aren't they? For web developers, that seems to be esoteric frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, Webpack, Babel, etc. etc. etc. whatever the cool kids are using these days) Compared to non-professionals who stick with tried-and-true glue (vanilla js, html, php, python, etc.) It would be like if Jenkins got a sponsorship, so they hire professionals who rewrite the entire thing in Rust because it's the best suited for the job by the professionals' reckoning. Never mind that barely anyone knows Rust compared to Java.
- iudqnolq 7y agoExcept my whole point was that to a designer a professional tool is Photoshop or Sketch or Figma. They're complaining good UI/UX design leads to React, when in reality following UI/UX and dev trends both flow from getting the sponsorship instead of causing each other.
- catalogia 7y ago> Professionals are going to use the latest and greatest tools at their disposal, aren't they? Some might do that. Others might well tell you they have a professional obligation to make sound engineering decisions rather than chasing trendy ephemeral fashions.