5 ms·

I'm sorry you seemed to have interpreted this article as a critique of designers from an "exclusively technical" person. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, bu

I'm sorry you seemed to have interpreted this article as a critique of designers from an "exclusively technical" person. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but some of your choice of words supports what I think is a pretty harmful idea in software development: that technical people aren't qualified to critique or discuss product design. Ultimately, you are right that I am not a designer, but I've actually worn product management and business hats in the past. Still I don't claim to think I "completely understand the product design process". Ultimately, this was an article I wrote and posted to a primarily technical website. It was primarily intended for technical people, but would hopefully be relevant to anyone involved in building software products. > the author citing Facebook as a prime example of low-agency infinite scroll traps when services like TikTok and Instagram are far better examples hints he might not be very familiar with the current design landscape which he is critiquing. This felt a bit presumptuous. I am familiar with Instagram and TikTok, but I chose Facebook as the prime example because they were the _first_ massively popular site to implement this type of interface. > Overall, this article seems to argue against a design perspective I've never once seen a designer present. I'm somewhat envious of you, then. I've unfortunately worked with product managers, designers, and engineers who have said that users are stupid. Sometimes, it's well-meaning and in a sort of abstract form, meaning "we should make it so simple that even an idiot could use it". But often, it's unfortunately quite literal. > he's a bit overconfident in his layman's interpretation of designers' perspective and intent Again, this was more of a critique of software development than of designers' intent in particular.

chefandy 6y ago
> I'm sorry you seemed to have interpreted this article as a critique of designers from an "exclusively technical" person. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but some of your choice of words supports what I think is a pretty harmful idea in software development: that technical people aren't qualified to critique or discuss product design. I think that developers have just as much right to critique the the design process as designers have to critique the development process, and I think it's just as likely to be useful. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's born from assumptions or misunderstandings. I specifically highlighted the benefits that arguments from outside the field can bring, and I said that I didn't think your article, specifically, was beneficial in that way. Frankly, I think you said this because you wanted to try and refute my comment on principle rather than refuting the argument that I made, which is that you didn't actually present any evidence of what you were asserting. > This felt a bit presumptuous. I am familiar with Instagram and TikTok, but I chose Facebook as the prime example because they were the _first_ massively popular site to implement this type of interface. Sorry if I was being presumptuous. It wasn't clear from your article that you were attempting to show a progression or highlight the history of these sorts of design decisions so your example, completely out of context, seemed outdated and non-representative. Personally, I didn't associate infinite scroll with Facebook more than Twitter or Myspace or Instagram, but maybe that's me. >I'm somewhat envious of you, then. I've unfortunately worked with product managers, designers, and engineers who have said that users are stupid. Sometimes, it's well-meaning and in a sort of abstract form, meaning "we should make it so simple that even an idiot could use it". But often, it's unfortunately quite literal. I have 23 years or so of experience working in technology in maybe half-a-dozen industries and I too have heard, among the people who actually make this stuff, say that users tend to behave stupidly as a metaphor for them not being patient or attentive enough to interact with things that aren't immediately apparent— the sort of well-meaning, abstract form that you allude to. How did you know that in your particular situation it was intended to be literal? How do you know that bad design decisions were made based on that? How even could you know? Did they say they ran their copy through a language analyzer to make sure it was at a first-grade level language when they knew they were targeting an adult demographic without diagnosed intellectual disabilities? With what specific criteria do you differentiate beneficially simplified designs— which you note are touted in Don't Make Me Think— and designs that are simplified out of disdain for users' intelligence? How does that difference negatively impact users? How did you come to the conclusion that this is pervasive throughout the industry? So in this article I did not see a) that product designers, in general, actually disdain their users' intelligence, b) what concrete effects that has on design, and c) how those things negatively affect users. > Again, this was more of a critique of software development than of designers' intent in particular. In what way? You mention product design, highlight a design trend, talk about designers, and the only external work you cite is product design tome. I did not once see one single reference made to software development, coding, or programmers.
- Ozzie_osman 6y ago
  > talk about designers I think this is the main issue here. You think this is about designers. It wasn't. I literally only use that word once, and I use it in the abstract. I consider anyone with input into a product as one of the "product's designers". They don't literally have to have that as their job description. A good example is someone like Alan Kay, whom I also cite. I use a lot of "we" and "us", to refer to the tech industry collectively. I never draw a line between engineers and designers. > It wasn't clear from your article that you were attempting to show a progression or highlight the history of these sorts I attempt nothing of the sort. I just chose the product I thought people would most associate with infinite scroll. FB, which by raw numbers is much larger than Instagram/TikTok/Twitter, and had an infinite scroll in front of hundreds of millions (billions?) of people even before TikTok was started, seemed like the most obvious example. And so I say "products like Facebook". Maybe MySpace had an infinite scroll first, idk, but MySpace isn't used by billions of people. > How did you come to the conclusion that this is pervasive throughout the industry? There's enough argument in the overall comment thread with some people saying "oh, when people say that, it isn't literal" and people responding "well, actually, I've encountered sometimes when it is". I think that proves that is does happen, and not just to me.
  - chefandy 6y ago
    > talk about designers You took those three words out of context and avoided the larger point. You said in your last comment that this was about software development and it's not. It's about product design. This has nothing to do with the construction of software and everything to do with the designing of products that happen to be made with software. This isn't a semantic point. The whole point of what you are trying to say is that people who design software products— regardless of what you call them— think negatively of users and that makes products worse. All I did was ask for proof— repeatedly— and all you did was avoid the question. > I attempt nothing of the sort. Like I said, "maybe it's just me." > There's enough argument in the overall comment thread with some people saying "oh, when people say that, it isn't literal" and people responding "well, actually, I've encountered sometimes when it is". I think that proves that is does happen, and not just to me. This was a relatively minor point in a whole list of assertions that you made that you didn't back up. I'm done. You're clearly on the defensive and not particularly interested in feedback or pushback of any sort. You're just taking individual bits of things that I said out of context and not even addressing the larger point that I've repeatedly tried to make. Have a nice day.

chefandy 6y ago

> I'm sorry you seemed to have interpreted this article as a critique of designers from an "exclusively technical" person. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but some of your choice of words supports what I think is a pretty harmful idea in software development: that technical people aren't qualified to critique or discuss product design. I think that developers have just as much right to critique the the design process as designers have to critique the development process, and I think it's just as likely to be useful. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's born from assumptions or misunderstandings. I specifically highlighted the benefits that arguments from outside the field can bring, and I said that I didn't think your article, specifically, was beneficial in that way. Frankly, I think you said this because you wanted to try and refute my comment on principle rather than refuting the argument that I made, which is that you didn't actually present any evidence of what you were asserting. > This felt a bit presumptuous. I am familiar with Instagram and TikTok, but I chose Facebook as the prime example because they were the _first_ massively popular site to implement this type of interface. Sorry if I was being presumptuous. It wasn't clear from your article that you were attempting to show a progression or highlight the history of these sorts of design decisions so your example, completely out of context, seemed outdated and non-representative. Personally, I didn't associate infinite scroll with Facebook more than Twitter or Myspace or Instagram, but maybe that's me. >I'm somewhat envious of you, then. I've unfortunately worked with product managers, designers, and engineers who have said that users are stupid. Sometimes, it's well-meaning and in a sort of abstract form, meaning "we should make it so simple that even an idiot could use it". But often, it's unfortunately quite literal. I have 23 years or so of experience working in technology in maybe half-a-dozen industries and I too have heard, among the people who actually make this stuff, say that users tend to behave stupidly as a metaphor for them not being patient or attentive enough to interact with things that aren't immediately apparent— the sort of well-meaning, abstract form that you allude to. How did you know that in your particular situation it was intended to be literal? How do you know that bad design decisions were made based on that? How even could you know? Did they say they ran their copy through a language analyzer to make sure it was at a first-grade level language when they knew they were targeting an adult demographic without diagnosed intellectual disabilities? With what specific criteria do you differentiate beneficially simplified designs— which you note are touted in Don't Make Me Think— and designs that are simplified out of disdain for users' intelligence? How does that difference negatively impact users? How did you come to the conclusion that this is pervasive throughout the industry? So in this article I did not see a) that product designers, in general, actually disdain their users' intelligence, b) what concrete effects that has on design, and c) how those things negatively affect users. > Again, this was more of a critique of software development than of designers' intent in particular. In what way? You mention product design, highlight a design trend, talk about designers, and the only external work you cite is product design tome. I did not once see one single reference made to software development, coding, or programmers.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago
> talk about designers I think this is the main issue here. You think this is about designers. It wasn't. I literally only use that word once, and I use it in the abstract. I consider anyone with input into a product as one of the "product's designers". They don't literally have to have that as their job description. A good example is someone like Alan Kay, whom I also cite. I use a lot of "we" and "us", to refer to the tech industry collectively. I never draw a line between engineers and designers. > It wasn't clear from your article that you were attempting to show a progression or highlight the history of these sorts I attempt nothing of the sort. I just chose the product I thought people would most associate with infinite scroll. FB, which by raw numbers is much larger than Instagram/TikTok/Twitter, and had an infinite scroll in front of hundreds of millions (billions?) of people even before TikTok was started, seemed like the most obvious example. And so I say "products like Facebook". Maybe MySpace had an infinite scroll first, idk, but MySpace isn't used by billions of people. > How did you come to the conclusion that this is pervasive throughout the industry? There's enough argument in the overall comment thread with some people saying "oh, when people say that, it isn't literal" and people responding "well, actually, I've encountered sometimes when it is". I think that proves that is does happen, and not just to me.
- chefandy 6y ago
  > talk about designers You took those three words out of context and avoided the larger point. You said in your last comment that this was about software development and it's not. It's about product design. This has nothing to do with the construction of software and everything to do with the designing of products that happen to be made with software. This isn't a semantic point. The whole point of what you are trying to say is that people who design software products— regardless of what you call them— think negatively of users and that makes products worse. All I did was ask for proof— repeatedly— and all you did was avoid the question. > I attempt nothing of the sort. Like I said, "maybe it's just me." > There's enough argument in the overall comment thread with some people saying "oh, when people say that, it isn't literal" and people responding "well, actually, I've encountered sometimes when it is". I think that proves that is does happen, and not just to me. This was a relatively minor point in a whole list of assertions that you made that you didn't back up. I'm done. You're clearly on the defensive and not particularly interested in feedback or pushback of any sort. You're just taking individual bits of things that I said out of context and not even addressing the larger point that I've repeatedly tried to make. Have a nice day.