3 ms·

Because they are visual designers, not interaction designers, so appearance is the primary criteria, rather than visual affordances to guide the user. Recommen

Because they are visual designers, not interaction designers, so appearance is the primary criteria, rather than visual affordances to guide the user. Recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things

quacked 5y ago
Wonderful recommendation (I have read it). I don't think anyone should be allowed to design one single consumer product until they have it practically memorized.
Jerrrry 5y ago
Functional design ain't pretty.
- 542458 5y ago
  I don’t think is true. Functional design may not be optimally pretty in some cases. However, the eye finds things like readability, organization, and visual hierarchy to be visually appealing - so functional design can very well be pretty in some cases (for example, Blender’s UI is highly functional, but still relatively visually pleasing). I’m not saying that all functional design is pretty, but I am saying that rejecting all pretty designs as non-functional is incorrect.
  - b112 5y ago
    And regardless, function before form does not invalidate form after the fact. EG, you're building a bridge. It needs to do its job, and not collapse. There are many perfectly functional designs, which have appealing form. Yet, if you want to actually be able to use the beast, it: - needs to be wide enough to pass traffic, but not too wide (waste of money) - needs to be able to keep the traffic from careening off into the abyss each use - needs 100 other things such as the above But once the above "functional" criteria are met, form is fine. Why not make it look good? Great! Yet, don't (as an example) overlay form which then reflects sunlight into driver's eyes, so they can't see and crash on the bridge. This is all reasonably understood with normal day objects. But, when someone engineers a bridge, they have to go to a decade of schooling + years on the job, to rise to that position. And the same for people designing beautiful buildings, or homes. They know the restrictions, the load requirements, and then they layer extra on top of that. Not even sure what I'm fully rambling on here about, except I guess that I think UX/UI should only be attempted after years of using software in a professional capacity. I was in to a store the other day, and they were looking up stock. It was an ncurses display. And the employee was zooming through it, as typical, with keyboard shortcuts, and FAST. UX/UI is really the problem. Making things pretty gets in the way of functional first. Keep it function before form, and you're fine. And if anyone rattles on about Apple and Steve Jobs, from what I've read, heard, and watched? He was 100% about "function first!". He'd go ballistic if simple functionality was hard to get at, or missing, or buggy, or incomprehensible. Yup, he wanted form to look good. But that came on top of proper, perfect function. Which is its own beauty.
brimble 5y ago
What's crazy to me is that I was promised Back In The Day that everything would be sunshine and roses in software design, and especially in Web design, once the "digital natives" took over and all those bad ol' print designers retired or got pushed out—but it sure looks to me like the exact opposite happened.
- plorkyeran 5y ago
  What seems to have actually happened is that the "digital natives" are better at dealing with bad UIs than those who learned how to use computers later in life, so the pressure to make usable interfaces diminished.
ajmurmann 5y ago
I think there also is a conflict between interfaces that have a flat learning curve on one hand and interfaces that work extremely well once you are used to them. I think the second category gets too little attention. It's also much harder to user test the second category but for certain types of applications it's what should be preferred. Ideally you can have both a flat learning curve and high efficiency for experienced users. To me the JetBrains IDEs are an example of this compromise. Examples that are fabulous for experts are of course Vim and emacs
- disqard 5y ago
  This is a fantastic observation! Having done research into UI/interaction design, I can confirm that all research in this area prioritizes things that (a) can be measured quickly and (b) with a high degree of confidence. Good luck running a controlled experiment where multiple folks use an interface for an entire week and then become power-users of the system!

quacked 5y ago

Wonderful recommendation (I have read it). I don't think anyone should be allowed to design one single consumer product until they have it practically memorized.

Jerrrry 5y ago

Functional design ain't pretty.

542458 5y ago
I don’t think is true. Functional design may not be optimally pretty in some cases. However, the eye finds things like readability, organization, and visual hierarchy to be visually appealing - so functional design can very well be pretty in some cases (for example, Blender’s UI is highly functional, but still relatively visually pleasing). I’m not saying that all functional design is pretty, but I am saying that rejecting all pretty designs as non-functional is incorrect.
- b112 5y ago
  And regardless, function before form does not invalidate form after the fact. EG, you're building a bridge. It needs to do its job, and not collapse. There are many perfectly functional designs, which have appealing form. Yet, if you want to actually be able to use the beast, it: - needs to be wide enough to pass traffic, but not too wide (waste of money) - needs to be able to keep the traffic from careening off into the abyss each use - needs 100 other things such as the above But once the above "functional" criteria are met, form is fine. Why not make it look good? Great! Yet, don't (as an example) overlay form which then reflects sunlight into driver's eyes, so they can't see and crash on the bridge. This is all reasonably understood with normal day objects. But, when someone engineers a bridge, they have to go to a decade of schooling + years on the job, to rise to that position. And the same for people designing beautiful buildings, or homes. They know the restrictions, the load requirements, and then they layer extra on top of that. Not even sure what I'm fully rambling on here about, except I guess that I think UX/UI should only be attempted after years of using software in a professional capacity. I was in to a store the other day, and they were looking up stock. It was an ncurses display. And the employee was zooming through it, as typical, with keyboard shortcuts, and FAST. UX/UI is really the problem. Making things pretty gets in the way of functional first. Keep it function before form, and you're fine. And if anyone rattles on about Apple and Steve Jobs, from what I've read, heard, and watched? He was 100% about "function first!". He'd go ballistic if simple functionality was hard to get at, or missing, or buggy, or incomprehensible. Yup, he wanted form to look good. But that came on top of proper, perfect function. Which is its own beauty.

brimble 5y ago

What's crazy to me is that I was promised Back In The Day that everything would be sunshine and roses in software design, and especially in Web design, once the "digital natives" took over and all those bad ol' print designers retired or got pushed out—but it sure looks to me like the exact opposite happened.

plorkyeran 5y ago
What seems to have actually happened is that the "digital natives" are better at dealing with bad UIs than those who learned how to use computers later in life, so the pressure to make usable interfaces diminished.

ajmurmann 5y ago

I think there also is a conflict between interfaces that have a flat learning curve on one hand and interfaces that work extremely well once you are used to them. I think the second category gets too little attention. It's also much harder to user test the second category but for certain types of applications it's what should be preferred. Ideally you can have both a flat learning curve and high efficiency for experienced users. To me the JetBrains IDEs are an example of this compromise. Examples that are fabulous for experts are of course Vim and emacs

disqard 5y ago
This is a fantastic observation! Having done research into UI/interaction design, I can confirm that all research in this area prioritizes things that (a) can be measured quickly and (b) with a high degree of confidence. Good luck running a controlled experiment where multiple folks use an interface for an entire week and then become power-users of the system!