3 ms·

Whenever a reply to me starts with "I don't mean to be insulting," I know that the comment ahead is doomed to be insulting. Yours was certainly no exception and

Whenever a reply to me starts with "I don't mean to be insulting," I know that the comment ahead is doomed to be insulting. Yours was certainly no exception and delivered every bit of insult that you claimed to not intend. I'm going to tackle your comment point-by-point to reinforce to you just how arrogantly you come across here: > I think you just lack design sense. His redesigns are very clearly significantly better ...to you. Design is subjective and, as a designer, you should know that such a statement of universal truth cannot be spoken of a design. What looks good to you, or perhaps even a majority of people you can find that agree with you, might look abhorrent to another person. There are very few universal appeals in the humanities. There's what I find appealing visually, and there's what you find appealing visually. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't. I know designers have quantified some things like subtleties of typography and the mathematics of color, but in the end design comes down to what looks appealing in most cases (or to the client). I'm sharing my personal opinion on the specific redesign that I've pointed out, and I'm asking Hacker News if I'm missing something plainly obvious in that I don't think it's better. You implore to me that his designs are not only better, they're very clearly better, implying that not only am I stupid for asking, I'm stupid for missing the glaringly obvious reason it's better that's somewhere right in front of me. That's precisely the question I asked, and you haven't answered it; you've instead made me feel stupid for asking by reiterating it to me another way. This sort of dismissal is something I've come to expect from many designers, and it's unfortunate for the designers that genuinely love interacting with people and discussing their craft without the inherent elitism that the rest of you seem to bring into threads like this[1]. I'd say from that linked thread you tended to agree with 54mf. Hey, he said the same thing I just did[2]! > (which is why they have been so popular here on HN) Because popularity on Hacker News is an implication of something. There's two general trends for a story on Hacker News. Either something kills it early on (like a flag) and it's doomed to a life below the fold for eternity, or it gains a few crucial early votes and hits page 1. Once on page 1, what I call the bandwagon effect kicks in and it's guaranteed a trip to near the top. In either case, the popularity of a specific item on Hacker News indicates absolutely nothing. There are things regularly voted to the top that shouldn't be, merely because they hit page 1 and got to ride the bandwagon. > and default bootstrap ALWAYS looks bad on a professional company's production site. It screams "I don't give a shit about real design so i just used bootstrap". To who? You? Depending on the audience, it might not matter. A Bootstrap site for paying electric bills, for instance, isn't a big deal. We had this fight in the other thread, and I'm not going to rehash it here. It looks bad to you because you're a designer and you're looking for it. Paradoxically, you and numerous other designers were arguing against changing Bootstrap because Bootstrap looks fine in the other thread. > I would urge you to study design a little more before you start critiquing designs. Here's that elitism coming back. I don't need to study anything to know what appeals to me and what doesn't. I especially don't need to study anything to critique design. To imply otherwise is to silence dissent. Do you think film critics go to film school before they're "allowed" to write about film? Do you think automotive journalists have, by and large, designed their own vehicles? Has your average food critic earned a Michelin Star? If I tell you that the contrast between the text and the background on roots.cx makes the text nearly illegible, are you going to tell me to go study typography and color before I'm allowed to say that to you? No. Because we can identify with what appeals to us or repulses us without training of any kind, we hire designers and then work with them until we find something that we like. When's the last time you had a client that you could tell "this looks good, and you're not trained enough to tell me otherwise, here's your invoice"? > I regularly see you discussing design on hacker news, and everything you post about it is misguided No, you don't. I called you and other elitist designers out on that thread you shit all over about making Bootstrap look a little bit better, and you're remembering that and trying to paint me with a larger brush. That's the only design-related thread I've participated in on this account. Go check. I'll wait. Each and every comment I made in that thread wasn't about design. It was about the arrogance and elitism of people like you. I stand by every single one and only regret that I can't render them in boldface, since it was entirely lost on you. I abhor you for making my comment about me rather than its own merits. Yes, shoot the messenger for not being educated enough to discuss design with "real" designers, then go through my comment history and pigeonhole me as the "bad commenter re: design". Get over me and start reflecting upon your own qualities, because they leave a lot to be desired. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4927249 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4927249 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935556 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935556

unreal37 14y ago
Website design isn't as subjective as you're making it out to be. It's not like abstract art or something. Website designs are meant to be functional. And the whole purpose of a website is to give you what you're looking for. 50% the work in any website redesign is the UX portion. Redesigning menus, placement of calls to action, what is on the screen and what isn't, understanding the purpose of every object on the screen. 25% of the work is copywriting, and only 25% of it is actual "creative design" in Photoshop. So you probably won't believe me, but there's actually a process to doing good web design. It's not just "what looks good to you may not look good to me."
acoyfellow 14y ago
Design is not as subjective as you are making it out to be. There're guidelines, popular conventions, trends.. Design is beyond "what it looks like".
jenius 14y ago
Yes, I thought you would probably take some offense at it (which you clearly did), which is why I said "I mean it in the least offensive way possible". I have nothing against you personally, and frankly I'm sure you are a wonderful person. I just strongly disagreed with your critiques in this particular subject. As a response, I'll say this: you're right about design being subjective. This is something I tend to consider common knowledge, and when one says that a design (or anything subjective, like a song) is 'better' or 'worse', you must assume this means that the majority of people would judge it as such. I can promise you that things are popular for a reason, whether you personally think so or not. However, this 'majority rule' is not the singular and sole influence - often times experts or tastemakers can influence how 'good' something is perceived to be. Great examples of this are modern art and wine -- the overwhelming majority of people do not have sophisticated taste in these two areas, so they often allow themselves to be guided by experts who have dedicated a lot of time and study to the area. And this makes sense, no? So let's think about how you can figure out if you have good taste or not in an area. If you find that your taste often aligns with both those who have experience and training, and the majority of normal people, whether or not you have expertise yourself, it's likely that your taste in this area is good. On the other hand, if you find it to be quite the opposite, it's likely that your taste isn't so good. Again, it doesn't matter here whether you an expert or not, although the more expertise you have, the more likely it is that your taste will 'improve'. If the masses and experts are at odds, although this doesn't happen super often, I'd be more likely to side with those with training, but that's just a personal opinion. This is nothing really to take too personally. I find that I have terrible taste in movies, for example. Most movies that critics like and that are popular with my friends and the masses, I really don't like very much. And that's fine, I just accept it, move on, and know that I'm not going to be writing movie critiques any time soon, since I don't have good taste in movies. I don't write poor quality movie reviews anyway, then rage on anyone who tells me that my taste in movies isn't so good. That's some American Idol shit right there. There's no arrogance or elitism here, it's self-awareness. I made this comment about you rather than the contents of the comment because the the comment you wrote is about you, not the contents of your comment. It's about this -- what we're talking about: subjective critiques, how valid they are, and how they can be backed up. You are arguing against both (many) trained designers and heavily up-voted items -- don't you think that means anything? I would like to truly apologize for the extent that I offended you with this comment though, I really honestly didn't mean for it to go over quite so poorly as it did. You don't seem to draw any difference between the two, but intentions and results are different things, really. And my intention was (and still is) not to incite anger, just to discuss. Also, I agree that the type on roots needs a little bit more contrast, other people (both designers and non-designers) have mentioned this as well. I'll be making that change soon : )

unreal37 14y ago

Website design isn't as subjective as you're making it out to be. It's not like abstract art or something. Website designs are meant to be functional. And the whole purpose of a website is to give you what you're looking for. 50% the work in any website redesign is the UX portion. Redesigning menus, placement of calls to action, what is on the screen and what isn't, understanding the purpose of every object on the screen. 25% of the work is copywriting, and only 25% of it is actual "creative design" in Photoshop. So you probably won't believe me, but there's actually a process to doing good web design. It's not just "what looks good to you may not look good to me."

acoyfellow 14y ago

Design is not as subjective as you are making it out to be. There're guidelines, popular conventions, trends.. Design is beyond "what it looks like".

jenius 14y ago

Yes, I thought you would probably take some offense at it (which you clearly did), which is why I said "I mean it in the least offensive way possible". I have nothing against you personally, and frankly I'm sure you are a wonderful person. I just strongly disagreed with your critiques in this particular subject. As a response, I'll say this: you're right about design being subjective. This is something I tend to consider common knowledge, and when one says that a design (or anything subjective, like a song) is 'better' or 'worse', you must assume this means that the majority of people would judge it as such. I can promise you that things are popular for a reason, whether you personally think so or not. However, this 'majority rule' is not the singular and sole influence - often times experts or tastemakers can influence how 'good' something is perceived to be. Great examples of this are modern art and wine -- the overwhelming majority of people do not have sophisticated taste in these two areas, so they often allow themselves to be guided by experts who have dedicated a lot of time and study to the area. And this makes sense, no? So let's think about how you can figure out if you have good taste or not in an area. If you find that your taste often aligns with both those who have experience and training, and the majority of normal people, whether or not you have expertise yourself, it's likely that your taste in this area is good. On the other hand, if you find it to be quite the opposite, it's likely that your taste isn't so good. Again, it doesn't matter here whether you an expert or not, although the more expertise you have, the more likely it is that your taste will 'improve'. If the masses and experts are at odds, although this doesn't happen super often, I'd be more likely to side with those with training, but that's just a personal opinion. This is nothing really to take too personally. I find that I have terrible taste in movies, for example. Most movies that critics like and that are popular with my friends and the masses, I really don't like very much. And that's fine, I just accept it, move on, and know that I'm not going to be writing movie critiques any time soon, since I don't have good taste in movies. I don't write poor quality movie reviews anyway, then rage on anyone who tells me that my taste in movies isn't so good. That's some American Idol shit right there. There's no arrogance or elitism here, it's self-awareness. I made this comment about you rather than the contents of the comment because the the comment you wrote is about you, not the contents of your comment. It's about this -- what we're talking about: subjective critiques, how valid they are, and how they can be backed up. You are arguing against both (many) trained designers and heavily up-voted items -- don't you think that means anything? I would like to truly apologize for the extent that I offended you with this comment though, I really honestly didn't mean for it to go over quite so poorly as it did. You don't seem to draw any difference between the two, but intentions and results are different things, really. And my intention was (and still is) not to incite anger, just to discuss. Also, I agree that the type on roots needs a little bit more contrast, other people (both designers and non-designers) have mentioned this as well. I'll be making that change soon : )