5 ms·

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is at all true, is the problem that designers are out to justify their jobs, and making changes as a consequence, or

by ysavir 5y ago

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is at all true, is the problem that designers are out to justify their jobs, and making changes as a consequence, or that designers are being put in a position where they have to justify their jobs, and are making changes to satisfy their managers? If anything, the problem in this scenario is that culturally we need everyone to be contributing all of the time, even for positions that may experience occasional downtime. Let's not assign blame to a particular group when they're simply responding to the pressures put on them.

jrm4 5y ago
If this is the best argument one can come up with for not being critical here, for me it absolutely proves we need to be more critical here. Of course, I don't wish to see anyone suffer, but I'm seeing something like: "Hey, we're paying a guy to dig holes and fill them back up with no value whatsoever, why are we doing that?" "Hey, man, stop attacking hole-diggers, they're just trying to make a living."
- ysavir 5y ago
  Can you go into more detail of why you think we need to be critical of designers? The GP makes no effort to justify their criticism of designers, perhaps you can provide some reasons for it, and thereby allow people to respond to actual arguments.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    A good example that was discussed recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504573 The justification isn't "It helps users" or anything like that. It's "This is not a new idea either — pretty much everyone else is doing it, e.g. macOS, Windows, iOS, Android, elementary OS, KDE.". Reducing usability and breaking habits to follow trends is a bad thing.
    - anchpop 5y ago
      This is a purely aesthetic change, it doesn't break any habits. In this case, it probably also improves usability, because there's less visual noise connected to those buttons, which lets you draw attention to buttons the user might not already know about using the same technique while staying within a certain 'visual noise budget'. Users expect that icons on the header bar are buttons (what else would they be?), so there's no need to call attention to that fact with an extra visual indicator. "Following trends" is a good thing because users appreciate when a piece of software looks like software they're already familiar with. It is maybe slightly annoying to people who already are used to the software, but every new user benefits from it.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        > In this case, it probably also improves usability, because there's less visual noise connected to those buttons Yes, because there are no buttons anymore, just icons. Icons are not button. Icons are icons, buttons are buttons > which lets you draw attention to buttons the user might not already know about using the same technique while staying within a certain 'visual noise budget'. That "visual noice" is the zone where you can click on a button. I also don't believe that "visual noise budget" thing at all. Maybe it helps a bit first time users, but most software shouldn't optimize for first time users. I'll add that not everyone has a perfect eyesight or perfect mouse control. That new style is bound to be frustrating for a few people. > Users expect that icons on the header bar are buttons (what else would they be?), so there's no need to call attention to that fact with an extra visual indicator. Actually, having fallbacks and multiple ways to signal something is a great thing. For example, if you only use color to indicate something, colorblind users may have a hard time using it. Icons and tooltips when you hover over it is also a good way to achieve that. > "Following trends" is a good thing because users appreciate when a piece of software looks like software they're already familiar with. It is maybe slightly annoying to people who already are used to the software, but every new user benefits from it. So they're focusing on new users instead of people that actually use their software. I don't see how that is a good thing. If this was just one change, I may agree with you, but this is a sign of a larger trend of constantly changing interfaces for absolutely no benefit to the user.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    Not necessarily of "designers," but perhaps of "design." In my opinion, "design" does two things at the same time that are presently fundamentally incompatible without being honest about it -- namely "usability" and "fashion." It's absolutely possible to do both, but you can't pretend you're doing one when you're doing the other. Architecture comes to mind. They do this right, most often by putting usability "first." You can make your design as pretty as you want, but if the damn wheelchair ramp doesn't work as intended, the whole design is broken and if that means your pretty thing must die because of it, then kill it and start over.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  I think, then, that software devs need to be more critical of themselves, too. I see people in the comments often bemoan that we are too reluctant to call projects "feature complete" when adding new features stops adding value. Instead, we get new versions and features for no reason other than to justify the continued existence of a full-time development team.
pc86 5y ago
Are you suggesting that designers keep getting paid for work they've already done?
- tnzm 5y ago
  Royalties, man, yeah.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Royalties don't really apply when you're being paid a wage for the work in the first place. The cognitive dissonance in both railing against spec work then demanding a piece of profit in perpetuity is, well... impressive.
- ysavir 5y ago
  I'm suggesting that if a company has designers that know their product, branding, team members, philosophies, values, and that have proven quality of work and ability to get along with the team, that they not eliminate their position because there isn't any design work needed _right now_. When you do need design work, you don't want to have to go through the trouble of hiring, on boarding, etc. The same applies for software engineering.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Software requires maintenance and can benefit from refactoring. What's the equivalent for design?
    - lmm 5y ago
      Developers can certainly be guilty of doing refactoring that's just churn when the current code is actually fine, and that may partly be because they too have to justify their existence. The difference is that code churn and framework churn are less directly harmful to end users than design churn (because they don't mess with the end user's workflow so much).

by ysavir 5y ago

jrm4 5y ago

If this is the best argument one can come up with for not being critical here, for me it absolutely proves we need to be more critical here. Of course, I don't wish to see anyone suffer, but I'm seeing something like: "Hey, we're paying a guy to dig holes and fill them back up with no value whatsoever, why are we doing that?" "Hey, man, stop attacking hole-diggers, they're just trying to make a living."

ysavir 5y ago
Can you go into more detail of why you think we need to be critical of designers? The GP makes no effort to justify their criticism of designers, perhaps you can provide some reasons for it, and thereby allow people to respond to actual arguments.
- Zababa 5y ago
  A good example that was discussed recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504573 The justification isn't "It helps users" or anything like that. It's "This is not a new idea either — pretty much everyone else is doing it, e.g. macOS, Windows, iOS, Android, elementary OS, KDE.". Reducing usability and breaking habits to follow trends is a bad thing.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    This is a purely aesthetic change, it doesn't break any habits. In this case, it probably also improves usability, because there's less visual noise connected to those buttons, which lets you draw attention to buttons the user might not already know about using the same technique while staying within a certain 'visual noise budget'. Users expect that icons on the header bar are buttons (what else would they be?), so there's no need to call attention to that fact with an extra visual indicator. "Following trends" is a good thing because users appreciate when a piece of software looks like software they're already familiar with. It is maybe slightly annoying to people who already are used to the software, but every new user benefits from it.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      > In this case, it probably also improves usability, because there's less visual noise connected to those buttons Yes, because there are no buttons anymore, just icons. Icons are not button. Icons are icons, buttons are buttons > which lets you draw attention to buttons the user might not already know about using the same technique while staying within a certain 'visual noise budget'. That "visual noice" is the zone where you can click on a button. I also don't believe that "visual noise budget" thing at all. Maybe it helps a bit first time users, but most software shouldn't optimize for first time users. I'll add that not everyone has a perfect eyesight or perfect mouse control. That new style is bound to be frustrating for a few people. > Users expect that icons on the header bar are buttons (what else would they be?), so there's no need to call attention to that fact with an extra visual indicator. Actually, having fallbacks and multiple ways to signal something is a great thing. For example, if you only use color to indicate something, colorblind users may have a hard time using it. Icons and tooltips when you hover over it is also a good way to achieve that. > "Following trends" is a good thing because users appreciate when a piece of software looks like software they're already familiar with. It is maybe slightly annoying to people who already are used to the software, but every new user benefits from it. So they're focusing on new users instead of people that actually use their software. I don't see how that is a good thing. If this was just one change, I may agree with you, but this is a sign of a larger trend of constantly changing interfaces for absolutely no benefit to the user.
- jrm4 5y ago
  Not necessarily of "designers," but perhaps of "design." In my opinion, "design" does two things at the same time that are presently fundamentally incompatible without being honest about it -- namely "usability" and "fashion." It's absolutely possible to do both, but you can't pretend you're doing one when you're doing the other. Architecture comes to mind. They do this right, most often by putting usability "first." You can make your design as pretty as you want, but if the damn wheelchair ramp doesn't work as intended, the whole design is broken and if that means your pretty thing must die because of it, then kill it and start over.
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
I think, then, that software devs need to be more critical of themselves, too. I see people in the comments often bemoan that we are too reluctant to call projects "feature complete" when adding new features stops adding value. Instead, we get new versions and features for no reason other than to justify the continued existence of a full-time development team.

pc86 5y ago

Are you suggesting that designers keep getting paid for work they've already done?

tnzm 5y ago
Royalties, man, yeah.
- pc86 5y ago
  Royalties don't really apply when you're being paid a wage for the work in the first place. The cognitive dissonance in both railing against spec work then demanding a piece of profit in perpetuity is, well... impressive.
ysavir 5y ago
I'm suggesting that if a company has designers that know their product, branding, team members, philosophies, values, and that have proven quality of work and ability to get along with the team, that they not eliminate their position because there isn't any design work needed _right now_. When you do need design work, you don't want to have to go through the trouble of hiring, on boarding, etc. The same applies for software engineering.
- pc86 5y ago
  Software requires maintenance and can benefit from refactoring. What's the equivalent for design?
  - lmm 5y ago
    Developers can certainly be guilty of doing refactoring that's just churn when the current code is actually fine, and that may partly be because they too have to justify their existence. The difference is that code churn and framework churn are less directly harmful to end users than design churn (because they don't mess with the end user's workflow so much).