11 ms·
You make some good points, but most of your objections are based on strong personal preferences, just as the author's recommendations were. This is fine, but it
by imiric 3y ago
You make some good points, but most of your objections are based on strong personal preferences, just as the author's recommendations were. This is fine, but it goes to show that visual design can't be boiled down to a set of strict rules that must never be broken. Instead, all recommendations should serve as guidelines, which can be ignored if needed. I appreciate your judgment as much as the author's, yet you make the mistake in thinking that yours is objectively better.
I'll just address your strongest point about modular scales. Its redeeming quality is that it provides a predictable scale and aligns everyone on the team about text sizes. There is some dubious benefit about "harmony", and in the final paragraph the author acknowledges that this system can be ignored. There's no need to be so adamantly opposed to it, though.
- chrismorgan 3y agoI don’t object to using a defined scales. Please have one; please. But I object to modular scales for the reasons I mentioned in the linked thread: they’re presented as virtuous, but they actually produce arbitrary, bland, inferior results, mediocre at best. It’s like some of the “golden ratio” guff people go explaining things with: it sounds nice, but it’s just plain nonsense. Therefore I will viciously attack modular scales as a concept every time I come across them (unless otherwise occupied). Someone’s wrong on the internet, and they’re misleading others.