5 ms·

Hmm, you got a lot of snark, but I'm going to attempt to actually answer this! I've seen "better designed" open source pages, but they tend to send the wrong m

Hmm, you got a lot of snark, but I'm going to attempt to actually answer this! I've seen "better designed" open source pages, but they tend to send the wrong message. When you see a mostly-well-designed open source page, your brain just feels like you're being tricked. You feel like someone's trying to charge you for something, or it just feels wrong. Design is contextual, and what we think of as "well-designed" tends to be from a SaaS perspective, and that sends the wrong message. You see it and think "oh, this is a SaaS product," and your brain just feels weird. This is true for all design. In markets, generic brands use a worse design to signal they're "cheaper," cereals for kids use cartoons, etc. The vibe needs to match the product, or else your brain sets off alarm bells. Open Source projects use design to project what they value. Org mode for Emacs should feel like... a site for emacs. Simple, clear, no frills. Whereas a site like Prettier looks nicer, because that's the whole point. (Also, separate "design" from "usability"... this site isn't pretty, but I can find everything I need super easily!)

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> you got a lot of snark Simple answer might be open source contributors don’t respect the work designers do as much as other environments and as a result don’t create communities that attract them.
- tecosaur 6y ago
  Eh, this seems a bit presumptuous. I'd be more inclined to suggest that the people who code this projects are usually not designers, and they attract other contributors based on the code not any visual design... so as much as it would be nice for a designer to jump in and work on a visual overhaul I'd expect it to be unfortunately uncommon.
- barumi 6y ago
  > Simple answers might be open source contributors don’t respect the work designers do as much as other environments (...) Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that skilled professionals don't work on someone else's hobbies for free?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that skilled professionals don't work on someone else's hobbies for free? No, because the premise is open source projects which developers, skilled professionals, work on. My real hypothesis, by the way, is that designers have been trained from early on not to do free work. The “work for exposure” meme captures this pathos.
    - barumi 6y ago
      > No, because the premise is open source projects which developers, skilled professionals, work on. You do understand that designers do have free will and a developer can't simply order one to work for free on someone else's hobby just because he could use specialized hep, don't you? It seems you're entirely oblivious to the very nature of FLOSS software, where practically all projects are born as a single individual's hobby, and some of them happen to grow way past the single-developer stage. With that in mind, what exactly leads you to believe that designers have no free will of their own and simply spend their days working on someone else's hobby just because he could use the specialized help?
ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
No ones brain feels like it’s being tricked because a page looks nice. That’s your subjective opinion. A hyper minority opinion.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I’m not saying this page can’t be improved. I am saying, however, that people pattern match when viewing websites, and the open source aesthetic is a very consistent aesthetic. And the impression the design projects is more important than it being aesthetically pleasing. Think about Lowes vs West Elm. Both sell things for homeowners. But you can tell from their aesthetics what to expect. Lowes could copy the aesthetic of an Apple store, but it would feel very “off”.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    No, I’m pretty sure most people don’t automatically distrust a page because it looks nice. You’re seriously overreaching There’s tons of open source projects with nice looking sites. It’s one of those HN blind spots You didn’t survey anyone either did you?
    - gkoberger 6y ago
      Nobody said “distrust”. Have you seen emacs? It ain’t pretty. But it’s effective and works for a certain type of person. This aesthetic fits the emacs aesthetic. If this site was too polished and pretty, people would expect a polished and pretty product. It indicates it won’t be easy to use this product, and it works to attract the correct user. If it was beautiful, people would have different expectations for the tool. This design indicates it’ll require work to set up and understand. In the same way this site would never work for a nice macOS app, a Panic site wouldn’t work for this tool.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  And yet it does! Case in point: my default reaction to see SaaS-style "pretty" page is to close the tab. I have my reasons to avoid SaaS as much as possible, so if my brain pattern-matches your site to a "generic SaaS" design, I almost immediately lose interest. Am I a minority? Maybe. But then, I'm also org mode's target audience.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> you got a lot of snark Simple answer might be open source contributors don’t respect the work designers do as much as other environments and as a result don’t create communities that attract them.

tecosaur 6y ago
Eh, this seems a bit presumptuous. I'd be more inclined to suggest that the people who code this projects are usually not designers, and they attract other contributors based on the code not any visual design... so as much as it would be nice for a designer to jump in and work on a visual overhaul I'd expect it to be unfortunately uncommon.
barumi 6y ago
> Simple answers might be open source contributors don’t respect the work designers do as much as other environments (...) Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that skilled professionals don't work on someone else's hobbies for free?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that skilled professionals don't work on someone else's hobbies for free? No, because the premise is open source projects which developers, skilled professionals, work on. My real hypothesis, by the way, is that designers have been trained from early on not to do free work. The “work for exposure” meme captures this pathos.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > No, because the premise is open source projects which developers, skilled professionals, work on. You do understand that designers do have free will and a developer can't simply order one to work for free on someone else's hobby just because he could use specialized hep, don't you? It seems you're entirely oblivious to the very nature of FLOSS software, where practically all projects are born as a single individual's hobby, and some of them happen to grow way past the single-developer stage. With that in mind, what exactly leads you to believe that designers have no free will of their own and simply spend their days working on someone else's hobby just because he could use the specialized help?

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago

No ones brain feels like it’s being tricked because a page looks nice. That’s your subjective opinion. A hyper minority opinion.

gkoberger 6y ago
I’m not saying this page can’t be improved. I am saying, however, that people pattern match when viewing websites, and the open source aesthetic is a very consistent aesthetic. And the impression the design projects is more important than it being aesthetically pleasing. Think about Lowes vs West Elm. Both sell things for homeowners. But you can tell from their aesthetics what to expect. Lowes could copy the aesthetic of an Apple store, but it would feel very “off”.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  No, I’m pretty sure most people don’t automatically distrust a page because it looks nice. You’re seriously overreaching There’s tons of open source projects with nice looking sites. It’s one of those HN blind spots You didn’t survey anyone either did you?
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    Nobody said “distrust”. Have you seen emacs? It ain’t pretty. But it’s effective and works for a certain type of person. This aesthetic fits the emacs aesthetic. If this site was too polished and pretty, people would expect a polished and pretty product. It indicates it won’t be easy to use this product, and it works to attract the correct user. If it was beautiful, people would have different expectations for the tool. This design indicates it’ll require work to set up and understand. In the same way this site would never work for a nice macOS app, a Panic site wouldn’t work for this tool.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
And yet it does! Case in point: my default reaction to see SaaS-style "pretty" page is to close the tab. I have my reasons to avoid SaaS as much as possible, so if my brain pattern-matches your site to a "generic SaaS" design, I almost immediately lose interest. Am I a minority? Maybe. But then, I'm also org mode's target audience.