6 ms·

Seems to me a perfect example of "Parkinson's Law of Triviality" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinso

by cateye 15y ago

Seems to me a perfect example of "Parkinson's Law of Triviality" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality I'm not saying that details aren't important. But I think there are more important problems for them to figure out now like "how are we going to determine what people are interested in by mining Tweets and Facebook posts. These information could be totally fallacious."

bradfordcross 15y ago
The higher level product design problems you're talking about are super important, and we'll write articles about that soon. We're really into interaction design. We're not figuring these problems out now. Our user research started over a year ago, and we've iterated with many different versions of the product ever since. Our engagement numbers are fantastic. However, being smart about product design and optimizing engagement does not preclude the attention to detail we demonstrate in this post on type. The role of type in a content focused design is just a worthy topic to post on, and there's no more to read into it than that.
- cateye 15y ago
  I don't want to sound like an asshole but: 1. The homepage really doesn't prove the attention to detail thing. It can be improved a lot. By the time someone wrote this blog post, he could have fixed that. (I really liked reading the post, do not get me wrong.) 2. Aesthetics is important. But would it really be less appealing if it was plain Arial/Helvetica? Would you bet your money on it by A/B testing? I wouldn't. These discussions end always in: design is important versus code is important. But that is completely not my point. My point is that it is often, not very wise to spend disproportionately time to trivial considerations. I don't know your "proportions" so I may have no value judgment about that.
  - jaysonelliot 15y ago
    You're trying to refute the importance of the design through assertive statements like number 2 above, and yes, you are making the point that design is not important by calling the typography a "trivial consideration." The fact that you don't understand why it's important to do typography well, and think that it's okay to just use Arial, doesn't mean that it is a trivial matter. That's the kind of thinking that led to the look of Windows 3.1, and I would argue that while Windows might have been the winner at the cash register, it was a lesser product. I applaud the Prismatic team for focusing on quality. MVPs have their place, but eventually you have to stop counting beans and think about making something great. That's hardly trivial.
jaysonelliot 15y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't think you could be more wrong in this case. Calling the attention to detail in design "trivial" is not just insulting to the designer and the company, it overlooks a very important fact—Prismatic is about the user's reading experience. Two points: First, just because they are able to explain the design rationale and historical context of their typographic decisions doesn't mean they necessarily agonized over them for months. A good designer knows these things from experience. I'm very happy that they took the time to explain them, and I don't think a blog post can be considered a frivolous use of a company's time. Second, you seem to assume that there isn't anyone else in the company thinking about what you deem the "more important problems," or that they haven't already been through an earlier MVP stage where they focused primarily on technical issues. Developers feel insulted and misunderstood when MBAs dismiss their efforts as fungible or underestimate their value, or the time required. It doesn't help when the equally vital role of designers is relegated to "triviality."
bicknergseng 15y ago
I would also like to disagree. In design, it's often the smallest details that make a particular design successful. For example, Google Maps has a pixel or two of white around text. It's something you would never notice unless you looked for it, but it's part of the reason why gmaps have been so pleasant compared to something like MapQuest's maps.

by cateye 15y ago

bradfordcross 15y ago

The higher level product design problems you're talking about are super important, and we'll write articles about that soon. We're really into interaction design. We're not figuring these problems out now. Our user research started over a year ago, and we've iterated with many different versions of the product ever since. Our engagement numbers are fantastic. However, being smart about product design and optimizing engagement does not preclude the attention to detail we demonstrate in this post on type. The role of type in a content focused design is just a worthy topic to post on, and there's no more to read into it than that.

cateye 15y ago
I don't want to sound like an asshole but: 1. The homepage really doesn't prove the attention to detail thing. It can be improved a lot. By the time someone wrote this blog post, he could have fixed that. (I really liked reading the post, do not get me wrong.) 2. Aesthetics is important. But would it really be less appealing if it was plain Arial/Helvetica? Would you bet your money on it by A/B testing? I wouldn't. These discussions end always in: design is important versus code is important. But that is completely not my point. My point is that it is often, not very wise to spend disproportionately time to trivial considerations. I don't know your "proportions" so I may have no value judgment about that.
- jaysonelliot 15y ago
  You're trying to refute the importance of the design through assertive statements like number 2 above, and yes, you are making the point that design is not important by calling the typography a "trivial consideration." The fact that you don't understand why it's important to do typography well, and think that it's okay to just use Arial, doesn't mean that it is a trivial matter. That's the kind of thinking that led to the look of Windows 3.1, and I would argue that while Windows might have been the winner at the cash register, it was a lesser product. I applaud the Prismatic team for focusing on quality. MVPs have their place, but eventually you have to stop counting beans and think about making something great. That's hardly trivial.

jaysonelliot 15y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't think you could be more wrong in this case. Calling the attention to detail in design "trivial" is not just insulting to the designer and the company, it overlooks a very important fact—Prismatic is about the user's reading experience. Two points: First, just because they are able to explain the design rationale and historical context of their typographic decisions doesn't mean they necessarily agonized over them for months. A good designer knows these things from experience. I'm very happy that they took the time to explain them, and I don't think a blog post can be considered a frivolous use of a company's time. Second, you seem to assume that there isn't anyone else in the company thinking about what you deem the "more important problems," or that they haven't already been through an earlier MVP stage where they focused primarily on technical issues. Developers feel insulted and misunderstood when MBAs dismiss their efforts as fungible or underestimate their value, or the time required. It doesn't help when the equally vital role of designers is relegated to "triviality."

bicknergseng 15y ago

I would also like to disagree. In design, it's often the smallest details that make a particular design successful. For example, Google Maps has a pixel or two of white around text. It's something you would never notice unless you looked for it, but it's part of the reason why gmaps have been so pleasant compared to something like MapQuest's maps.