5 ms·

High DPI and a full color palette are no excuse for not getting margins right. Attention to detail is still doable, it just isn’t something that is valued by M

by n8cpdx 4y ago

High DPI and a full color palette are no excuse for not getting margins right. Attention to detail is still doable, it just isn’t something that is valued by MBA/PM types. (Being an ambitious personal project made in limited free time is a better excuse, and I commend the project author’s efforts)

andsoitis 4y ago
> valued by MBA/PM type Or by folks who are not seasoned in user experience. Just because you use something doesn't make you an expert - UI is often thought of that way, but it is a real discipline.
- jahewson 4y ago
  It’s true, though most UI/UX people are not experts in their field. Often they’re less useful to listen to than people who actually use the software. Now an expert - that’s a different matter. An expert will transform your entire sense of what a product even is.
- kybernetyk 4y ago
  Yeah, that's gate-keepery nonsense. Back in the day the discipline of UX was completely unheard of - yet we had better user experiences than in the last decade with all those smart UX people writing lengthy blog posts about why drop shadows are bad.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    > Back in the day... Depends which day one goes back to. Web projects I've been involved with since early 90s considered user modalities, affordances, predictability, and frictionlessness. To clients we used utility words like straightforward, coherent, clean, functional to describe the system, and experience words like delight, effectiveness, familiarity, ease, as sensations a user should have using the system. Not sure when I first recall the abbreviation UX, probably mid-90s. Mostly we just called it Design, a blend of things one might do making comfortable office furniture and effective graphic design and editorial layout for a magazine. Perhaps things were interesting then because design was an emerging intersectional craft and interfaces were experimentally evolving. Digital UX wasn't yet the ubiquitous sameness of content marketing scaffolding.
    - kybernetyk 4y ago
      I meant real software. Not web anything.
      - kergonath 4y ago
        > I meant real software. Not web anything. Now that sounds way more gatekeeper-y than what you complained about before. Websites and web apps are by and large terrible in terms of UI and UX and would benefit a lot from people who know what they are doing in terms of design of the user-facing parts. Still, they are the software a lot of people interact with for a significant chunk of the time they spend on a computer.

by n8cpdx 4y ago

andsoitis 4y ago

> valued by MBA/PM type Or by folks who are not seasoned in user experience. Just because you use something doesn't make you an expert - UI is often thought of that way, but it is a real discipline.

jahewson 4y ago
It’s true, though most UI/UX people are not experts in their field. Often they’re less useful to listen to than people who actually use the software. Now an expert - that’s a different matter. An expert will transform your entire sense of what a product even is.
kybernetyk 4y ago
Yeah, that's gate-keepery nonsense. Back in the day the discipline of UX was completely unheard of - yet we had better user experiences than in the last decade with all those smart UX people writing lengthy blog posts about why drop shadows are bad.
- Terretta 4y ago
  > Back in the day... Depends which day one goes back to. Web projects I've been involved with since early 90s considered user modalities, affordances, predictability, and frictionlessness. To clients we used utility words like straightforward, coherent, clean, functional to describe the system, and experience words like delight, effectiveness, familiarity, ease, as sensations a user should have using the system. Not sure when I first recall the abbreviation UX, probably mid-90s. Mostly we just called it Design, a blend of things one might do making comfortable office furniture and effective graphic design and editorial layout for a magazine. Perhaps things were interesting then because design was an emerging intersectional craft and interfaces were experimentally evolving. Digital UX wasn't yet the ubiquitous sameness of content marketing scaffolding.
  - kybernetyk 4y ago
    I meant real software. Not web anything.
    - kergonath 4y ago
      > I meant real software. Not web anything. Now that sounds way more gatekeeper-y than what you complained about before. Websites and web apps are by and large terrible in terms of UI and UX and would benefit a lot from people who know what they are doing in terms of design of the user-facing parts. Still, they are the software a lot of people interact with for a significant chunk of the time they spend on a computer.