3 ms·

> "Note: if you are a designer and you are at the point where you wish to get better at programming, read a book. Heck, read two. Now, you know more than enough

> "Note: if you are a designer and you are at the point where you wish to get better at programming, read a book. Heck, read two. Now, you know more than enough to cope with most decisions you will encounter." See how silly that sounds when you turn it around? Author seems to think that all it takes it a couple of books a bit of practice to become competent at design. Sadly typical for engineers to hand-wave everything that isn't engineering away as a job easy enough for monkeys.

sheldor 15y ago
So true. We (engineers) most of the time miss the point in design, and think of it as a technical field which is so not true. It takes practice, a keen eye and lots of theory in order to be able to craft serious designs. It's almost like saying "Buy a bunch of books, learn Autocad and you'll be an architect in no time"
- ISeemToBeAVerb 15y ago
  Exactly. It always amazes me that so many engineers dismiss attempting to learn about design. It amazes me because, in so many ways, engineering IS design. You can't really untangle the two. A well engineered application is a well designed one. They both inform and guide each other.
tptacek 15y ago
Just to be the devil's advocate here: A designer who reads a couple books about programming is somewhat less likely to generate a lot of value for customers than a developer who reads a couple books about design. Success or failure in many (maybe most?) markets is much more sensitive to engineering talent than design talent.
- tg3 15y ago
  "is somewhat less likely to generate a lot of value for customers" - based on what exactly? This sounds very arbitrary and you don't cite any reasons for this belief. "success...is much more sensitive to engineering talent" - again, is that a fact? what is that assertion based on?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Part of it is common sense. Plenty of ugly working apps do fine in the market. Apps that don't work at all don't ever do fine. Part of it is long-term experience. My field is dominated by products that sell to businesses; they have universally terrible UIs, many of which wouldn't have passed muster in 1999. Part of it is direct, current, ongoing experience: we sell security engineering services to application providers, and so my working weeks consist of looking at other people's applications --- in fact, of looking at successful applications, because nobody spends 5 figures on security assessment if their app isn't doing well. Most of the applications we see look worse and are less useable than Themeforest templates. Part of it is friends, who have launched products on templates instead of professional designs, who have done fine and not observed any objection to their application's lack of a vertical baseline typographic grid or the correct noise texture in the background or the color-theoretic implications of their button colors. Again: launched on templates, did fine. HN overvalues design expertise. For most of the businesses started by people on HN, from weather tracking to fraud prediction to appointment reminding to credit card processing, a unique design tailored to the company's exact business is not a real requirement. In many cases, custom designs are mostly about vanity. I'm not bagging on designers. My sense is that for the subset of designers who are actually both talented and competent consultants, there is too much work, not too little. I admire and can geek out about graphic design and UX. I wish designers the best. But: design is one of those things that keeps people from shipping their apps, or sometimes even from starting on it. The belief that a poorly designed rev1 app will destroy the prospects of a new business has harmed more startups than inadequate design ever will. Unrealistic and frankly pointless expectations about bespoke design are a mental obstacle to getting shit done. So I think it's worth pointing out how overvalued design is, repeatedly and at length.

sheldor 15y ago

So true. We (engineers) most of the time miss the point in design, and think of it as a technical field which is so not true. It takes practice, a keen eye and lots of theory in order to be able to craft serious designs. It's almost like saying "Buy a bunch of books, learn Autocad and you'll be an architect in no time"

ISeemToBeAVerb 15y ago
Exactly. It always amazes me that so many engineers dismiss attempting to learn about design. It amazes me because, in so many ways, engineering IS design. You can't really untangle the two. A well engineered application is a well designed one. They both inform and guide each other.

tptacek 15y ago

Just to be the devil's advocate here: A designer who reads a couple books about programming is somewhat less likely to generate a lot of value for customers than a developer who reads a couple books about design. Success or failure in many (maybe most?) markets is much more sensitive to engineering talent than design talent.

tg3 15y ago
"is somewhat less likely to generate a lot of value for customers" - based on what exactly? This sounds very arbitrary and you don't cite any reasons for this belief. "success...is much more sensitive to engineering talent" - again, is that a fact? what is that assertion based on?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Part of it is common sense. Plenty of ugly working apps do fine in the market. Apps that don't work at all don't ever do fine. Part of it is long-term experience. My field is dominated by products that sell to businesses; they have universally terrible UIs, many of which wouldn't have passed muster in 1999. Part of it is direct, current, ongoing experience: we sell security engineering services to application providers, and so my working weeks consist of looking at other people's applications --- in fact, of looking at successful applications, because nobody spends 5 figures on security assessment if their app isn't doing well. Most of the applications we see look worse and are less useable than Themeforest templates. Part of it is friends, who have launched products on templates instead of professional designs, who have done fine and not observed any objection to their application's lack of a vertical baseline typographic grid or the correct noise texture in the background or the color-theoretic implications of their button colors. Again: launched on templates, did fine. HN overvalues design expertise. For most of the businesses started by people on HN, from weather tracking to fraud prediction to appointment reminding to credit card processing, a unique design tailored to the company's exact business is not a real requirement. In many cases, custom designs are mostly about vanity. I'm not bagging on designers. My sense is that for the subset of designers who are actually both talented and competent consultants, there is too much work, not too little. I admire and can geek out about graphic design and UX. I wish designers the best. But: design is one of those things that keeps people from shipping their apps, or sometimes even from starting on it. The belief that a poorly designed rev1 app will destroy the prospects of a new business has harmed more startups than inadequate design ever will. Unrealistic and frankly pointless expectations about bespoke design are a mental obstacle to getting shit done. So I think it's worth pointing out how overvalued design is, repeatedly and at length.