4 ms·
I thought this was an unhinged parody of a design site, kinda surprised it's a real thing. Unfortunately the design isn't for me, things look off center and th
by candiddevmike 8mo ago
I thought this was an unhinged parody of a design site, kinda surprised it's a real thing. Unfortunately the design isn't for me, things look off center and the overall "weight" of components feels off.
- cluckindan 8mo agoAgreed. I’ve spent considerable time on scale-based design, and 1.618 always feels too large of an interval.
- carshodev 8mo agoYeah I tried using a similar "golden rule" after reading a design article about it. I based my css variable sizes on it but I kept having to use manual px and rem values instead because stuff just never felt correct.
- stevage 8mo ago1.618 is complete nonsense that people hang on to because they want it to be true. It doesn't stack up, neither in ancient Greek times, nor in the renaissance, nor today. It's a dumb idea that needs to die.
- Garrett_Mack 8mo agobut nautilus shells pretty
- jheriko 8mo ago[dead]
- Garrett_Mack 8mo agoYep. It's way too large in linear scales. but if youre using an asymmetrical scale, it can be quite useful indeed. You don't have to use it though. The system works with any scale factor. 1.618 is just the default. This video explains in detail how the system works with lots of visual aids. https://youtu.be/r1DANFZYJDw https://youtu.be/r1DANFZYJDw
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- danielvaughn 8mo agoI hate to pile on since it's already getting some criticism, but I agree. It's kind of a good example why designers don't purely rely on mathematically consistent designs. Getting things to "look right" often means shifting pixels here and there ever so slightly, so that the math is a bit off but it feels better on the eyes.
- jofzar 8mo ago100 agree, I was like "this does look better" then realised I was saying it for the before in every example.
- esafak 8mo agoI had the same thought: everything looks off.