4 ms·
The entire article can be summarized into one word: trees. Anyway, this is the sort of information that you must absolutely consume from a direct source, i.e.
by rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
The entire article can be summarized into one word: trees.
Anyway, this is the sort of information that you must absolutely consume from a direct source, i.e. Apple documentation and Human Interface Guidelines, because they change a lot and secondary sources can be outdated or flat out wrong at any given point in time. Additionally, your mental model of the UI must correspond with Apple’s implementations of its UI frameworks (if this is targeted at designers, well the problem of design that is detached from engineering is a separate and long discussion, though very real and so widespread as to be the norm).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wodenokoto 3y agoMy impression of this article is that it is not an interpretation of apples guide lines (ie a secondary source) but a write up of observations (ie a primary source) This can be of interest for a few reasons, but particularly because such investigations might reveal “true” design philosophies over espoused philosophies.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y agoWhat do you mean by true versus espoused? iOS’s modals, tab bars, navigation bars, and everything mentioned in the article are exactly the objects or value types that you deal with when you go to the code level and actually use the APIs.
- wodenokoto 3y agoIt’s in response to a complaint that we shouldn’t be reading secondary sources on design, not a comment on the results of this particular article.
- eviks 3y agoThe official docs can also be wrong and outdated, so there is no difference here. Besides they can also be poorly written, so there is nothing absolute here
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y agoOutdated, yes. Poorly written, sometimes. But how can you call documentation wrong without seeing the source code? And if the direct source is wrong, how could the secondary source then be right? Sounds to me like developer or designer arrogance is at play here, when they should be questioning the correctness of their own understanding.
- eviks 3y ago> But how can you call documentation wrong without seeing the source code? Very easy - by observing reality, and how it matches to what's documented > And if the direct source is wrong, how could the secondary source then be right? In exactly the same easy way - by observing and documenting reality. For the same reason this is a second primary source, not a secondary one > Sounds to me like developer or designer arrogance is at play here, when they should be questioning the correctness of their own understanding. Good albeit slightly misdirected advice, we have a great case of misunderstanding pretty trivial things that lead to trivial questions and faulty personality assessment