5 ms·

Honestly their first concrete example, with fewer borders, is something that bothers me a lot on the internet today. Cool everything looks flat and like part o

Honestly their first concrete example, with fewer borders, is something that bothers me a lot on the internet today. Cool everything looks flat and like part of everything else. That's not hard to go down through a giant list of or anything... /s

munk-a 4y ago
It's also important to contrast the information density. Both the "bad" and "good" examples are quite readable but the one on the left is going to be more useful for larger lists of things.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  To be fair, the course is about designing beautiful UIs, not necessarily useful ones. Wether that is actually desirable is up to you.
  - layer8 4y ago
    “Beautiful” has become a scare word for me.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    When I think of a beautiful UI I think of something that's aesthetically pleasing while being highly functional and clear to read.
411111111111111 4y ago
The goal was beautiful design, not good usability. You gotta admit that it looks good, and eye candy is usually extremely effective for user retention, even if the alternative handles better, technically.
- chankstein38 4y ago
  I have trouble distinguishing the two as an unusable design is usually automatically worse for me but you're not wrong in making the distinction that they specified beautiful. I guess I wish people would choose functional/usable over beautiful or merge them in a way that doesn't sacrifice the one I find more important! To be fair, I also just generally don't like the look of it without borders and stuff.
- tmtvl 4y ago
  > You gotta admit that it looks good I don't have to, and I'm not going to because it looks like crap. Why is "Cancel" just a word instead of a button? And while "Invite" is marginally better, a rounded rectangle is not much of a button either and doesn't immediately signify "oh, I can click this". I know some people prefer flat and featureless design (and there are jokes we could make about that), but that is very personal and tastes can vary widely. Though in the interests of fairness I will admit that there are people who do feel that kind of thing looks good.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    That problem exists in both versions though - i.e. making it more "beautiful" hasn't obviously affected the usability. But I can see at least one way in which it could - if shown on a wide screen and there were a lot of entries, matching up the "Team"/"Member" signifier with the contact name would be quite challenging. The lines in the orginal version may look a little clunky but do serve a purpose.
  - waldothedog 4y ago
    What would “immediately” signify the ability to be clicked? And to whom would this sign have such a meaning?
    - tmtvl 4y ago
      Styling to make it look like a button which is jutting out would signify the option for interaction to anyone who's ever seen a device with physical buttons, like a keyboard, smartphone, television, remote control,...
      - waldothedog 4y ago
        Doesn’t this discount the nature of the medium? The option for interaction is inherent. Everything on a screen can be clicked. The language, iconography, and visual treatment combine to differentiate certain items and establish an expectation in the event of a click.
- bufio 4y ago
  It looks like bog standard webshit.
- munk-a 4y ago
  Good usability is beautiful. Valuing aesthetics over functionality is ugly.
- amon22 4y ago
  I also honestly prefer the border example
jasmer 4y ago
It's a bad first example admittedly because it seems very aesthetic, frankly, the borders may theoretically make good UI. Most workers today don't remember the old Windows forms: they were good UI. Just ugly. In fact, those 'Windows Forms' were also fast - it was back in the days when almost everything was fast.
- chankstein38 4y ago
  I miss those days... Everything now takes countable seconds to load or do anything... I'm running a 3090 with a decent processor, and 32GB of RAM yet even some of the simplest things take so long anymore. I miss those ugly forms days specifically too haha I personally prefer UX over any amount of design so I remember being so disappointed when Microsoft started introducing everyone to the concept of flat layouts that don't differentiate sections and just generally don't even look conceptually usable half the time. Give me ugly fast forms over looks any day.
nextaccountic 4y ago
I think you could apply their principles to add centered grayed dividers between the lines that don't go through the entire width of each row, maybe 80% or so This or just alternating the background of each row between light and slightly darker colors

munk-a 4y ago

It's also important to contrast the information density. Both the "bad" and "good" examples are quite readable but the one on the left is going to be more useful for larger lists of things.

IMTDb 4y ago
To be fair, the course is about designing beautiful UIs, not necessarily useful ones. Wether that is actually desirable is up to you.
- layer8 4y ago
  “Beautiful” has become a scare word for me.
- munk-a 4y ago
  When I think of a beautiful UI I think of something that's aesthetically pleasing while being highly functional and clear to read.

411111111111111 4y ago

The goal was beautiful design, not good usability. You gotta admit that it looks good, and eye candy is usually extremely effective for user retention, even if the alternative handles better, technically.

chankstein38 4y ago
I have trouble distinguishing the two as an unusable design is usually automatically worse for me but you're not wrong in making the distinction that they specified beautiful. I guess I wish people would choose functional/usable over beautiful or merge them in a way that doesn't sacrifice the one I find more important! To be fair, I also just generally don't like the look of it without borders and stuff.
tmtvl 4y ago
> You gotta admit that it looks good I don't have to, and I'm not going to because it looks like crap. Why is "Cancel" just a word instead of a button? And while "Invite" is marginally better, a rounded rectangle is not much of a button either and doesn't immediately signify "oh, I can click this". I know some people prefer flat and featureless design (and there are jokes we could make about that), but that is very personal and tastes can vary widely. Though in the interests of fairness I will admit that there are people who do feel that kind of thing looks good.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  That problem exists in both versions though - i.e. making it more "beautiful" hasn't obviously affected the usability. But I can see at least one way in which it could - if shown on a wide screen and there were a lot of entries, matching up the "Team"/"Member" signifier with the contact name would be quite challenging. The lines in the orginal version may look a little clunky but do serve a purpose.
- waldothedog 4y ago
  What would “immediately” signify the ability to be clicked? And to whom would this sign have such a meaning?
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    Styling to make it look like a button which is jutting out would signify the option for interaction to anyone who's ever seen a device with physical buttons, like a keyboard, smartphone, television, remote control,...
    - waldothedog 4y ago
      Doesn’t this discount the nature of the medium? The option for interaction is inherent. Everything on a screen can be clicked. The language, iconography, and visual treatment combine to differentiate certain items and establish an expectation in the event of a click.
bufio 4y ago
It looks like bog standard webshit.
munk-a 4y ago
Good usability is beautiful. Valuing aesthetics over functionality is ugly.
amon22 4y ago
I also honestly prefer the border example

jasmer 4y ago

It's a bad first example admittedly because it seems very aesthetic, frankly, the borders may theoretically make good UI. Most workers today don't remember the old Windows forms: they were good UI. Just ugly. In fact, those 'Windows Forms' were also fast - it was back in the days when almost everything was fast.

chankstein38 4y ago
I miss those days... Everything now takes countable seconds to load or do anything... I'm running a 3090 with a decent processor, and 32GB of RAM yet even some of the simplest things take so long anymore. I miss those ugly forms days specifically too haha I personally prefer UX over any amount of design so I remember being so disappointed when Microsoft started introducing everyone to the concept of flat layouts that don't differentiate sections and just generally don't even look conceptually usable half the time. Give me ugly fast forms over looks any day.

nextaccountic 4y ago

I think you could apply their principles to add centered grayed dividers between the lines that don't go through the entire width of each row, maybe 80% or so This or just alternating the background of each row between light and slightly darker colors