6 ms·

Design is compromise

• sqemo 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• eventualcomp 3mo ago
  Is this a response to marketing lingo specifically or some other cultural phenomenon? There's a difference between what you want to do to advance your goals (e.g. compromising), and what you want to say for visibility for whoever's goals they are (e.g. "uncompromising" the customer's goals). There might be a deeper point being communicated, not sure, but I see no issue here.
• tracerbulletx 3mo ago
  Well there's compromise that means multi-dimensional constraint optimization, and that's fine. But a lot of time what people mean by compromise is they compromised on cost, or on effort, or on attentiveness. Colloquially that's what people usually mean when they use the word with a negative connotation.
• zkmon 3mo ago
  Not quite. Design is about optimization (of user experience, performance etc). Optimization implies constraints. Constraints are what made you think of "compromise".
  • Waterluvian 3mo ago
    To join in the pedantry: I always see optimization as being about compromise. Free wins that are strictly superior aren’t optimizations, they’re just doing it properly. Optimization is to make certain properties better, usually at the cost of others.
    • zkmon 3mo ago
      Optimization is not same as compromise. Optimization is about having freedom to tweak the parameters with the goal of maximzing somthing. Compromise focuses on lack of freedom. The terms focus on different areas of the overall situation. Design happens within the optimization context, which is shaped by the constraints.
      • necovek 3mo ago
        Compromise is one technique in doing optimization: as someone mentioned, you could be maximizing a known good property of your product with no ill-effects on any other property. But you might be optimizing an overall experience for two needs, which means balancing potentially conflicting goals, and choosing imperfect solution for both — some might use the term "compromise" for this. Other terms are in use, like "balance" or "trade-off" from the OP or... But I believe the message is clear in that the OP believes majority of design is about balancing opposing forces and their tension and they call that compromising.
  • majormajor 3mo ago
    Optimization implies constraints. But multiple targets implies compromise. How do you optimize for multiple measurements without compromise? You have to decide how to weight each against the other. "How can I maximize my widgets-produced-in-six-months output given that I'm constrained by having $x budget?" - constraint that could give you a different solution than higher or lower budget. "How can I maximize my widgets-produced-in-six months output AND my customer satisfaction given that I'm constrained by having $x budget" - now you have to compromise one or the other. Here I'm talking about the physical design of how the widget is made as it's the first super-concrete example that popped to mind, but almost any sort of design operates in a similar multiple-goals world.
  • amelius 3mo ago
    "Design is compromise" is basically saying that the thing you're optimizing is not at its optimum for all the variables separately which is often true, and therefore it is not a remarkable thing to say, and it is also not necessarily true.
  • ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
    Constraints != Compromise. Compromise is stuff like what I'm going through, right now. The user needs to know that a set of locations on a map, can also be displayed as a sortable list, but the affordances for that access are not working with the overall design. It's extremely easy to add a button, but it messes with the screen layout. We'll figure it out, but we can't ignore it. It's too important to our users, so we may have to make a graphical compromise. It's really tempting to think that "stupid users should know better," but that's a fairly destructive mindset.
• rswail 3mo ago
  "Design depends largely on constraints." - Charles Eames
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
  Absolutely spot-on. However, most folks (not just designers) have a difficult time with compromise, these days. It's become a value judgment (You're "weak," if you compromise). I learned, when I was a kid, that I can't always get what I want (I think that someone even sang about it, way back then). The art of compromise, is one of the most valuable skills I had, during my career, and I'm still at it. In fact, I was just texting with a team member, a few minutes ago, where we have to come to a compromise.
  • card_zero 3mo ago
    Compromise is a lose-lose. It originally meant a promise between two parties to follow the decision of an arbiter. Sometimes this is the best we can hope to do, and right and necessary in order to have nice things: see for instance the Wikipedia essay "The Wrong Version", https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version or the Northern Ireland peace process. However, a mutual preference is a win-win, and is a creative new idea instead of merely splitting differences, and is way superior, if you can get one. Often people don't make the distinction and call both things compromises. ...why the downvote, please (mystery downvoter)? I can only read that as saying "No! You must not arrogantly hope to be creative and solve problems for mutual benefit! It's important that everyone be quiet and learn to suffer!"
    • chuckadams 3mo ago
      Framing everything as a binary win/lose outcome is pretty naïve no matter how much terminology you dress it up with. Also, complaining about downvotes is a good way to attract downvotes.
      • card_zero 3mo ago
        No it isn't (and no it isn't). I only complain because I hand you all what I believe to be a valuable idea and then somebody reacts by silently making a rude finger gesture at it, and they don't even say why, that's the irritating part. So, what are you saying about framing everything as binary? That actually sounds like what I'm saying is bad: to be uncreative and stubborn and reject any new idea on principle, a Not Invented Here sort of mindset, even if when you thought about it you'd prefer the new idea. That stubbornness is what leads to difference-splitting.
• justindotdev 3mo ago
  similar to what a person is capable of. we cant be good at everything, we're specialists; backend engineers, frontend developers, machine learning engineers, etc... as in design, it cannot appeal to every eye, being opinionated makes good design stand out.
• inclinq 3mo ago
  The problem isn't compromise. It's pretending there isn't one. Every product optimizes for something. The interesting question is what it chose to sacrifice.
  • groundzeros2015 3mo ago
    Agreed. And making explicit that a trade off needs to be made tends to make people uncomfortable. They want to keep their options open. Understanding this seems to be essential for leaders in general.
• dooscooby 3mo ago
  the way i see it is that design actually never get treated what its meant to be treated as - a service to help make business more money..
• tikotus 3mo ago
  Compromise is the last tool in the designer's toolbox. Before settling with a compromise, the designer should relentlessly try to narrow down what the problem being solved is, while trying out all possibilities, until it looks like there is no solution that matches exactly the problem (or they run out of time). More often than not, a compromise means that the problem wasn't scoped out well enough, and it ends up partially solving a problem that didn't need solving. Edit: I do think it's about trade-offs though. Choosing to solve one problem, acknowledging another problem will be disregarded.
  • pixl97 3mo ago
    When you give someone a problem, they can find a solution, but if you give them a dilemma then a compromise is almost a given.
    • 20k 3mo ago
      True dilemmas are rare though, often it just means insufficient investigation of your requirements
      • necovek 3mo ago
        I disagree, we are faced with "true dilemmas" every day numerous times, not even limited to work and creation — e.g. you might be going to a shop to buy crackers, and while you have a preferred brand, a new entrant might be half the price — do you use the opportunity to try the new one, or get the tried-and-true? These types of things are ubiquitous when designing and building products — how do you communicate to your users, how much you communicate and how much you automate, how do you target slightly different users (new customer vs old one used to old patterns in your product), what use-case is the most important one (by customer type, customer numbers, and how commonly they do something...), etc.
  • suzzer99 3mo ago
    It depends on how you define compromise. Is it a compromise to consider things like screen size, load wait times, or the average expected user's attention span? If so, then design is a big juggling act of compromise. If not, and compromise is just stuff like "add yet another floating ad footer to make the c-suite happy," then absolutely it should be the last tool.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• j45 3mo ago
  Design for the many vs design for the few vs design for one's self can be one of the issues. Design for others can be different than needing to impose your design on others.
• quantum_state 3mo ago
  Another way to put it: design is the outcome of an optimization against a given set of objectives and constraints. This would also help to keep track of the reasoning underlying changes in the design to provide an audit trail.
  • kiaansaraiya 3mo ago
    I like this phrasing.
• rramadass 3mo ago
  A very comprehensive and cognition-based work is the following by Henrik Gedenryd; How Designers Work – Making Sense of Authentic Cognitive Activities - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352065
• airstrike 3mo ago
  I really like the article, as it resonates with me. However, I also think it's a bit of a meta-commentary. Ultimately it boils down to definition of the word "compromise", so a better article is one that establishes those semantics first.
• ttoinou 3mo ago
  Once constraints are fixed you can choose your tradeoff among dimensions, that’s the compromise. But constraints are not fixed, you can optimize, discover new techniques and change the space of requirements. For example thanks to computer scientists we get better and better algorithms for compression, and thanks to hardware companies we get new / faster chips with different models to do new kinds of computation Thus, you can move the compromise space, by working harder
  • groundzeros2015 3mo ago
    That’s true. But in a business context I’ve found the opposite mindset is helpful. Anything which might be a constrain which is not contrary to your goal is probably a real constraint. Yes in theory you can rebuild X, Y, Z but what can we actually do in this initiative. I’ve taken to even taking social constraints as real and I communicate them to my management in that way.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• light_triad 3mo ago
  The terminology can be confusing because in corporate speak being uncompromising can mean being opinionated. Not "we made no tradeoffs" but "we didn't split the difference." The article means it as tradeoff rather than concession, so the argument is "to avoid design by committee you have to compromise on purpose."
• iririririr 3mo ago
  design is focus. engineering is compromise.
• minraws 3mo ago
  Every decision is a compromise, if it's not a compromise then it's not a decision just pure delusion or worse mis-engineering or perhaps there was never a decision there to begin with. Design is one of the clearest examples, since it's filled with decisions about stuff, but just picking how you type which keyboard you use everything is a compromise. If perfect things existed everything and everyone would have naturally converged on it over enough time, but we rarely seem to see that happen outside monopolies built on network effects or extreme subsidisation.
• atomicnature 3mo ago
  Not necessarily. Higher-level design often involves dissolving apparent tensions or opposites through layering or more sophisticated mechanisms, while preserving the benefits of both. Example -> Proposition: "Phew, we have to choose between convenience and security." Naive design: "Let's find a watered-down compromise." Good design: "Let's layer security on top of convenience by designing the system so users don't have to choose, or water either one down." Great companies have a history of dissolving apparent contradictions under a single roof via good design.
  • necovek 3mo ago
    Some might actually say that they found "a perfect compromise" where both use-cases are served well — this seems to be very much a linguistic preference today, regardless of the fact that "compromise" originally came from "making concessions".
  • zer00eyz 3mo ago
    Sometimes good design is that there is NO compromise. The choices made that lead to the 737max disaster are a great example of what happens when NO isnt allowed to be an option.
• dabinat 3mo ago
  I think the hallmark of a good designer is knowing which things can be compromised and which things absolutely should never be. Different designers will have different opinions on what those things are.
• coldtea 3mo ago
  >Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day. It’s decision making. Prioritizing. Deciding that one thing is more important than another. It's AI slop. Edit: as pointed to me, it says 2018. I'd be damned. Guess that makes it merely part of the "LinkedIn post" training set pushing AI towards such style!
  • greenlimetea 3mo ago
    [dead]
  • kepano 3mo ago
    This essay was published in December 2018.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  • antonvs 2mo ago
    [flagged]
• lucianmarin 3mo ago
  Defaults are compromise, but design isn't.
• mdorokhovich2 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• bryzaguy 3mo ago
  I fundamentally disagree with the premise. Why are we attempting to change the meaning of the word compromise? “compromise” and “has trade-offs” are NOT synonymous. The antithesis of compromise is to make strong decisions that WILL alienate people, but will better target your intended audience. That, IMHO, is a great thing.
  • baxtr 3mo ago
    Every decision is a trade-off even when people don’t realize it. If you avoid making strong decisions that’s usually also a trade-off since you trade let’s say peace of mind / not alienating people with having a sharp spike. I often urge people to do deliberate trade-offs instead of just waiting it out.
  • CGMthrowaway 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  • makeitdouble 3mo ago
    > strong decisions that WILL alienate people, but will better target your intended audience. That, IMHO, is a great thing That's supposing you have a well defined intended audience. Many people see it as a prerequisite, that's also how we ended up with the personas during research. I'd argue there are many designs that should go beyond a specific intended audience and allow for larger reach and minimize alienating people. My reasoning is that in part we're just not good at properly analyzing requirements (it's just hard) and people's needs are also volatile. Trying to design the perfect things for a narrow target often results in something just really bad. As a concrete example, mouse makers targeting specific hand size and shape for specific actions usually end up with a worse product even for their intended audience. Having more leeway to hold it differently, change the way you use it e.g. depending on the time of the day or task at hand is just more comfortable. The best mouses on the market are pretty forgiving and flexible. Heck, the most clamored pointing devices (Apple trackpads and Kensington style trackballs) are completely hand agnostic.
    • bryzaguy 2mo ago
• yieldcrv 3mo ago
  > When did the word “compromise” become vilified? > Compromise is neither good nor bad, it’s something we do every day. because compromise usually means "the wrong answer because an imbecile is necessary for consensus" A benevolent and competent Authoritiarian is the best form of governance, everyone is just worried about the successor. But that nirvana period functions well due to no compromise and the right choices being made in quick succession.
• croemer 3mo ago
  (2018)
• Yokohiii 3mo ago
  So the compromise in Obsidian is to throw everything else under the bus for aesthetics?
• gumby 3mo ago
  Even te business folks know this, at least those who read “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. All the very successful-yet-failing companies were unable to understand these compromises, and each was overturned by a newcomer that could (usually due to necessity, of course)
• pimlottc 3mo ago
  Design is about limiting the actions available to guide the user towards a preferred set of outcomes. A good tool makes it easier to get good results and harder to get bad results. Of course, what “good results” are depends entirely on what you’re trying to accomplish, which is why picking the right tool for the job is so important.
• ashu1461 3mo ago
  It kind of reminds me of this article which I think was also shared on HN couple of weeks ago. https://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-your-product-is-great-it-doesnt-need.html https://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-your-product-is...
• shermantanktop 3mo ago
  Sure, but not all compromises are equal. Creating a product and touting how secure it is while some jackass manager continually cuts the budget for security fixes? It’s self-defeating to throw up your hands and say “oh, we had to compromise.” The reality is that decision-making is about power. If you are continually losing all the tradeoffs, that says all you need to know. Sometimes power is in the hands of people who use it in ways that will tank the company, all while everyone else “compromises” so we all ride the express train to a failure.
• agnishom 3mo ago
  Without the details of what the compromise is, this article is mostly tautological. Of course, _some_ things require compromise. But many things do not. Assuming false dichotomies is a fairly common fallacy that no one is immune from.
• hahahaa 3mo ago
  Compromise is usually seen negatively due to all those negotiation courses etc. You need a villian word to show your thing is better.
• est 3mo ago
  Design is tradeoff, a similar thing I often observe is: Creativity came after limitations People often mistake thank freedom grants creativity
• dilawar 3mo ago
  Something similar can be said about "values". They help you make hard decisions. You don't need values if only make easy decisions. But values conflicts with each other. You can't value more than a few at the same time. E.g. If you make a decision which is good for your employee who is struggling (value employee), it may not be a good decision for your client who is already delayed (value client/speed). Etc..
• socalgal2 3mo ago
  Here’s an unpopular opinion. almost all ui customization should be buried in settings menus and not available as easy to do my mistake gestures. The first time I want into this was when MS word would let you drag icons off the toolbar if you pressed slightly too long. suddenly your toolbar loses a feature because you accidentally dragged the icon off which was the gesture for removing the icon. Absolutely no one needed that shortcut gesture. People who wanted to customize, which is rare, could have dug into some customization setting. Instead, for every one person that wanted to edit their toolbar, 100 others got frustrated when their app stopped functioning Unfortunately designed love these bad designs. Mac and iOS are full of them. I did some gesture just a few days ago that magically pulled the left shortcuts off the finder. Something I never wanted to do. So many of my family member have lost the picture of their loved ones on their iPhone lock screen because of the stupid gesture to set it as it’s too easy to do by accident. Leaving as a settings option only would be much better. Same with the charging clocks that appear and their stupid swipe to change. Several times a week, reaching for the phone when I wake up, the clock gets swapped even though I have a choice I want and then I have to go spend time putting it back. Worse, it’s not even intuitive because up/down change one thing and left/right change another. No user needs this shortcut. It probably exists so the clock designer can check all their designs. No fucks given what’s good for users. I’m sure they misinterpret their metrics as positive feedback
• jbs789 3mo ago
  Compromise is not the same as a trade-off. The assertion that they are the same throws this whole thing into question for me.
• PeterStuer 3mo ago
  For me (non native speaker), compromise and tradeoff or not completely the same, and I would favor the latter for this article. Tradeoff conveys the coupling of the alternatives. Design for one goal trades away another. Compromise does not carry that coupling directly imho.
• meta_gunslinger 3mo ago
  So much equivocation that it makes this article unreadable.
• paltonder 3mo ago
  Compromise may occur during design, but it does not define design. Design is the intentional shaping of something to serve a purpose.
• ChrisMarshallNY 3mo ago
  Just FYI. I had a bit of a watershed, in my life, when I read Scott Jenson's The Simplicity Shift[0] It was written in Ye Time Beefore Ye iffowne, so mobile UI was really limited. It's all about compromise. How to prioritize, and how to develop UI that was usable and affordable, while still maintaining some design integrity. It also talks a lot about how to work with others, and come up with compromises that work well. [0] https://jenson.org/The-Simplicity-Shift.pdf https://jenson.org/The-Simplicity-Shift.pdf (Downloads a PDF -short read).