5 ms·

> The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. Forget the haircut. It's about taste. I'm not going to waste my time trying to "rationally" explain why so

> The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. Forget the haircut. It's about taste. I'm not going to waste my time trying to "rationally" explain why something looks bad. It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it.

ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
> It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it. This is exactly the kind of logic that's often held by design non-professionals and which leads to an unusable mess of a UX if applied. This is not how design works.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. An ugly UI may be very functional and intuitive to use, an ugly button design may well drive the point home that it is indeed a button. That's not going to change the fact that I hate looking at it and therefore don't want to use it. It's not an either-or, you can have both, either or neither. However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. I'm aware that some people, perhaps most programmers, aren't actually that sensitive when it comes to looks. All I can say is that it matters to me. I can't put it in words any better than I can explain why your haircut looks bad, but it does! On the other hand, if something is annoying or difficult to use, I can explain why.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
    >I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. It was clear. >However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. That's only your opinion, and my point was it doesn't look bad per se. There's nothing wrong with it aesthetically. It's just your bias/conditioning/what have you, same as with the haircut.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      First of all, please fix your quoting, it's unreadable. Secondly, you can say "it's just your bias/conditioning" about almost anything. Of course it's subjective. There's no such thing as "objectively bad taste". Nothing looks "objectively bad". That's why explaining bad looks is such a waste of time. Of course it's just my opinion, but when I immediately reject an application because in my opinion it looks like crap, that's the only opinion that matters. Whether or not that hurts your bottom line is a different story. Microsoft isn't exactly known for good taste, yet it's a trillion dollar company.
      - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
        It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a statement of an opinion. Then you were asked what makes the screenshots bad and you answered with a sub-par analogy. Only after that you narrowed your aim down to "taste". So, please, fix your discussion tactics, it's bad. Nothing looks "objectively bad" only in complete isolation and in the absence of context. When you add the world to an object it unavoidably begets aesthetic meaning. So you're wrong there. I'm sorry for the formatting, can't get used to putting two linebreaks. What's a real waste of time is arguing with strangers over the internet.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        > It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a statement of an opinion. To the contrary, that's about as opinionated as an opinion gets. > So, please, fix your discussion tactics, it's bad. If it wasn't obvious that it was an opinion on aesthetics from the first reply, it should've been obvious from the second and third. I'm not actually discussing my opinion with you, I'm trying to explain to you why it's pointless to explain further. You may have noticed that other people chimed in and said things along the lines of "oh no the other stuff is ugly!". I'm not gonna argue with that, those are valid opinions, valid subjective perceptions. > Nothing looks "objectively bad" only in complete isolation and in the absence of context. When you add the world to an object it unavoidably begets aesthetic meaning. So you're wrong there. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html > What's a real waste of time is arguing with strangers over the internet. You're setting yourself up for it, because even four replies in, you insist on criticizing something I never intended to say.

ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago

> It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it. This is exactly the kind of logic that's often held by design non-professionals and which leads to an unusable mess of a UX if applied. This is not how design works.

gridlockd 6y ago
I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. An ugly UI may be very functional and intuitive to use, an ugly button design may well drive the point home that it is indeed a button. That's not going to change the fact that I hate looking at it and therefore don't want to use it. It's not an either-or, you can have both, either or neither. However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. I'm aware that some people, perhaps most programmers, aren't actually that sensitive when it comes to looks. All I can say is that it matters to me. I can't put it in words any better than I can explain why your haircut looks bad, but it does! On the other hand, if something is annoying or difficult to use, I can explain why.
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
  >I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. It was clear. >However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. That's only your opinion, and my point was it doesn't look bad per se. There's nothing wrong with it aesthetically. It's just your bias/conditioning/what have you, same as with the haircut.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    First of all, please fix your quoting, it's unreadable. Secondly, you can say "it's just your bias/conditioning" about almost anything. Of course it's subjective. There's no such thing as "objectively bad taste". Nothing looks "objectively bad". That's why explaining bad looks is such a waste of time. Of course it's just my opinion, but when I immediately reject an application because in my opinion it looks like crap, that's the only opinion that matters. Whether or not that hurts your bottom line is a different story. Microsoft isn't exactly known for good taste, yet it's a trillion dollar company.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
      It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a statement of an opinion. Then you were asked what makes the screenshots bad and you answered with a sub-par analogy. Only after that you narrowed your aim down to "taste". So, please, fix your discussion tactics, it's bad. Nothing looks "objectively bad" only in complete isolation and in the absence of context. When you add the world to an object it unavoidably begets aesthetic meaning. So you're wrong there. I'm sorry for the formatting, can't get used to putting two linebreaks. What's a real waste of time is arguing with strangers over the internet.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        > It would be an ok answer, but the whole discussion started with you saying "On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful" which is more than just a statement of an opinion. To the contrary, that's about as opinionated as an opinion gets. > So, please, fix your discussion tactics, it's bad. If it wasn't obvious that it was an opinion on aesthetics from the first reply, it should've been obvious from the second and third. I'm not actually discussing my opinion with you, I'm trying to explain to you why it's pointless to explain further. You may have noticed that other people chimed in and said things along the lines of "oh no the other stuff is ugly!". I'm not gonna argue with that, those are valid opinions, valid subjective perceptions. > Nothing looks "objectively bad" only in complete isolation and in the absence of context. When you add the world to an object it unavoidably begets aesthetic meaning. So you're wrong there. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html > What's a real waste of time is arguing with strangers over the internet. You're setting yourself up for it, because even four replies in, you insist on criticizing something I never intended to say.