8 ms·

>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Citation needed. Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted, tell

by ebf 14y ago

>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Citation needed. Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted, tell me that https://svbtle.com/ https://svbtle.com/ content isn't on the same plane and still readable? You can have everything on the same plane and with proper use of whitespace and good typography, it can be very readable. Other examples: http://daringfireball.net/ http://daringfireball.net/ https://medium.com/about/9e53ca408c48 https://medium.com/about/9e53ca408c48 Hacker News

tejaswiy 14y ago
Not quite sure why this is being downvoted .. valid point?
sgdesign 14y ago
I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.
- ebf 14y ago
  Is it actually harder though? I don't think so. I think there is some truth to the idea that content over chrome is a good usability principle (obviously to an extent, Win8 takes it a little too far sometimes), and in my opinion, it is easier to learn proper use of whitespace and good typography than how to make textures and less "sterile" designs. My point is you are stating your opinion as if it is a truth, when it isn't. Sure, citation needed is a little snarky, but I disagree that it doesn't bring anything to the debate and is irrelevant. Maybe you could have pointed to usability studies, so there would at least be some data to back up your claim.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Your examples all have the content centered under a single column (which is a LOT of chrome), a flat design would have little to no margins. DF (http://daringfireball.net/ http://daringfireball.net/) even has site index which is another no no from a flat deign perspective. PS: Notice how both of these changes make the sight less user friendly?
    - ebf 14y ago
      When has flat design meant little to no margins? I'm genuinely curious about this interpretation of flat design.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    I'm not a designer (or a good one, anyway), so I welcome corrections from good designers, but I'd assume that whether or not flatness in this sense is a good idea would totally depend on context: how much site navigation is there, how many other presentational elements, ads, links to other things, etc. Svtble works because it takes a minimalist's approach to all of that, throwing it all away into the bin. The content is readable because it's almost the only thing on the page. The font is large and the content is centered. But would that work in the general case, as an approach for user interfaces and search engines and the modern day portal page and so on? I can't think of any examples there that would be considered "good design".
    - ebf 14y ago
      Good points, but a lack of examples does not necessarily mean that it isn't possible. I think Bing has down a good job of having a flat design with high usability. http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=hello+world&sc=8-7&sp=-1&sk= http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&#3...
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        Ehh. Personally, I find Bing's example there to be identical to Google's, along with all the same flaws. It's readable, but for instance there's no contrast between the search results and the "related searches" sidebar.
        ebf 14y ago
        And I would say that the use of whitespace and typography is enough to differentiate it.
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  I see "Citation needed" as a reminder that hn is not youtube and that claims that are not obviously anecdotal need backing support.
- baddox 14y ago
  "Citation needed" is absolutely snarky, in the sense that it is highly critical. And it should be used consistently and unapologetically. Would you be snarky in your response to someone accusing you of being a witch? I hope so, and I hope you would point out that some evidence would be nice. Snarkily requesting evidence is not a bad quality in an online community—it's a vital one. Stating things as facts and refusing to even attempt to provide evidence is a bad quality. If you claim that flat interfaces are more difficult to use, and someone else claims the opposite, how do you each attempt to justify your positions? Do you compete to see who can more quickly compare their opponents to YouTube commenters, or do you simply cite some evidence to corroborate your position?
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    "Citation needed" is intellectually lazy. It is middlebrow dismissal's slightly more popular cousin. "Citation needed" is never a counter-argument, but often stands in place of one. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burying your opponent in discovery: it is a challenge that consists solely of expecting someone else to do more work than they would like to. If you have a question about something, ask. If you disagree with something, then make your argument. Never simply post "citation needed" and think that you have contributed anything to a discussion. (Just FYI, it's also a "tell" -- some people will avoid engaging you if you post nothing more than "citation needed", just as some people avoid engaging others that end every sentence with "lol".)
    - baddox 14y ago
      If you're a skeptic (i.e. scientific skeptic), then you default to not believing a claim until evidence is introduced to support it. Is it intellectually lazy to say "citation needed" to someone that is accusing someone else of being a witch? I firmly believe that I have no obligation to prove that I am not a witch, and moreover that such attempts would be impossible. The person who makes a claim that has not been widely observed empirically is the person who needs to present evidence. In the case of user interface analysis, I thought most of us agreed that real data is much more important than a single user's anecdote. If someone makes the anecdotal claim that since they dislike a certain UI feature it must perform worse in general, that person needs to present actual evidence. Unless I have done my own research, the only thing I can do is request evidence and remain skeptical until I see some. It is equally fallacious for me to counter with my own anecdotal evidence. Saying "citation needed" is precisely the appropriate response to baseless claims.
richardwhiuk 14y ago
On a slightly different note, I find svbtle poor design. My eyes keep getting distracted by the elements in the top left and right corner of the page. With both of them, it isn't obvious what will happen if they are pressed. To me, it feels exactly what the author of this article was dismissing - design for design's sake, which make the site less usable than if they'd made it clear what they do.
RivieraKid 14y ago
Google Reader's top-level hierarchy is: 1) black menu bar 2) Google bar 3) options bar 4) left panel 5) list of items. The first problem is, that the logical structure is unnecessarily complicated, but that's not the point. The second problem is, that there's almost no visual distinction / contrast between the main segments of the page, which makes it harder to process mentally. It's like a file manager that shows the filesystem as a flat list of files instead of as a hierarchy of folders. My first impression of the new Reader or Gmail design was - messy bunch of black texts on white or almost-white background plus some almost invisible gray lines and a weird red button. It just seems messy and structureless. Svbtle or HN are different, they have much simpler top level structure - just a menu and a list of items. BTW, svbtle's design is superior to Reader's on multiple level's.
jmilloy 14y ago
The "citation needed" is one of my favorite know-it-all, over-objective "hacker" sort of memes. It's just hilarious. Not everything that is true or helpful has or needs a citation. Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs? And more than that, if you disagree, don't pretend to ask for a citation, just explain why you disagree. Most likely, even if you can't admit it, you'll find that you don't disagree, you are just misinterpreting. In this case, the statement is - an opinion based on experience - obviously true - coupled with an example anyways In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement. You probably received down votes because "citation needed" is lazy, uninformative, uninteresting, and, in this case, wrong.
- ebf 14y ago
  Fair enough, but considering I clarified why I said citation needed 14 hours before you posted and 5-10 minutes after I made the original comment, the fact that you and others are still attacking this statement, rather than the points I brought up, seems a bit silly to me. Sure, I could have provided this clarification earlier, but I have already conceded that the original comment was snarky and lacking in context for such a short statement. And to your specific comments: >Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs? Are you suggesting that this isn't testable? I guarantee Microsoft and others have tested it. If the author isn't prepared to provide data, then it should be presented as an opinion. "I believe that..." > - obviously true If it is obviously true, then there must be data to back it, right? >In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement. My point was in regards to this particular statement, which, in my opinion, is stated as a truth: >Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page. I've agreed in later comments that you can take "content over chrome" too far in UI design, but this statement is NOT necessarily true in regards to content existing on the same plane. Putting everything on the same plane does not mean that it is harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Poorly designed websites are hard to read, regardless of what plane the content exists. I merely pointed out that there are examples that do not fit this viewpoint. In fact, I would argue that these examples tend to be the most readable designs I've seen, but this is an opinion that I have, so I have made sure to clarify it merely as that: an opinion. As I've posted below, I am tired of people posting articles or blogs (and others upvoting these posts) that are not backed by any data. If something is posted as an opinion, then I agree that it doesn't need a citation. Unfortunately, there is a reoccurring theme that I've seen become more and more prevalent in the tech community, a theme where ideas are pushed as truths when the author has done nothing to show that there is actual, credible, merit to the conclusions that have been drawn. If these ideas were presented in any academic circle without evidence, they would be disregarded and laughed at. Yet here we are, discussing a post with a +200 upvote count, and the author has done little to prove his or her point, besides cherry pick examples that suit his or her conclusions. Content existing on another plane MAY improve readability, but I cannot say for certain. But I can point out that there are some very readable websites that have their content and navigation exist all one one page. I think we can all agree that bad design leads to bad readability. And content existing on the same plane isn't inherently bad design. Proper use of whitespace and good typography can go a long way to improving readability and the UX. See Bing results http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=hello+world&sc=8-7&sp=-1&sk= http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&#3... (although I'm not a big fan of their social sidebar, but the results page and the top level navigation, is in my opinion, very usable) So why should anyone accept this presentation of ideas that are not prefaced with the fact that they are an opinion and are not backed by any data? Why is it snarky to ask for evidence of these ideas, yet in academia it is normal and encouraged to be skeptical? If I presented an idea to my boss, his first question would be where is the data to support this? If I proposed an idea to my advisor, he would ask why do I believe this and what is the supporting evidence for this claim. Why are these types of posts continually upvoted? Is it because we want agree with the author's idea? Is it because others have already upvoted this, so therefore the author is probably right? I honestly do not understand. It isn't like it is impossible to test this.
MaysonL 14y ago
Whenever I run into a blog with the un-subtle design, I hit the Readability bookmarklet: I can't stand the garish logos.
fudged71 14y ago
A functional interface needs to be understood. With each new interface you use, you load a new set of metaphors and interactions into your brain to help you navigate, understand, and use whatever it is that you are using. The interface needs to be relatable, or at least offer an explanation of how to use it. Having more experience with interfaces will make you more familiar with different design patterns and such, but there is a limit to how much we can relate to. This isn't about readability, but rather usability, so I find your examples poor. It's not just about typography and whitespace. Yes, they are simple and on the "same visual plane", but they follow design patterns that have existed on the web for many years: Navigation placement is on the top and left, links are either underlined or highlighted. On the other hand, svbtle is using bizarre navigation visual cues at the top which need some level of inspection or trust to use, and medium doesn't have a standard navigation at all. They are designing away elements of the webpage that people are familiar with.

by ebf 14y ago

tejaswiy 14y ago

Not quite sure why this is being downvoted .. valid point?

sgdesign 14y ago

I didn't say that it was impossible to have good content hierarchy with a flat design, I just said it was harder. And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

ebf 14y ago
Is it actually harder though? I don't think so. I think there is some truth to the idea that content over chrome is a good usability principle (obviously to an extent, Win8 takes it a little too far sometimes), and in my opinion, it is easier to learn proper use of whitespace and good typography than how to make textures and less "sterile" designs. My point is you are stating your opinion as if it is a truth, when it isn't. Sure, citation needed is a little snarky, but I disagree that it doesn't bring anything to the debate and is irrelevant. Maybe you could have pointed to usability studies, so there would at least be some data to back up your claim.
- Retric 14y ago
  Your examples all have the content centered under a single column (which is a LOT of chrome), a flat design would have little to no margins. DF (http://daringfireball.net/ http://daringfireball.net/) even has site index which is another no no from a flat deign perspective. PS: Notice how both of these changes make the sight less user friendly?
  - ebf 14y ago
    When has flat design meant little to no margins? I'm genuinely curious about this interpretation of flat design.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  I'm not a designer (or a good one, anyway), so I welcome corrections from good designers, but I'd assume that whether or not flatness in this sense is a good idea would totally depend on context: how much site navigation is there, how many other presentational elements, ads, links to other things, etc. Svtble works because it takes a minimalist's approach to all of that, throwing it all away into the bin. The content is readable because it's almost the only thing on the page. The font is large and the content is centered. But would that work in the general case, as an approach for user interfaces and search engines and the modern day portal page and so on? I can't think of any examples there that would be considered "good design".
  - ebf 14y ago
    Good points, but a lack of examples does not necessarily mean that it isn't possible. I think Bing has down a good job of having a flat design with high usability. http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=hello+world&sc=8-7&sp=-1&sk= http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&#3...
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      Ehh. Personally, I find Bing's example there to be identical to Google's, along with all the same flaws. It's readable, but for instance there's no contrast between the search results and the "related searches" sidebar.
      - ebf 14y ago
        And I would say that the use of whitespace and typography is enough to differentiate it.
jamesbritt 14y ago
I see "Citation needed" as a reminder that hn is not youtube and that claims that are not obviously anecdotal need backing support.
baddox 14y ago
"Citation needed" is absolutely snarky, in the sense that it is highly critical. And it should be used consistently and unapologetically. Would you be snarky in your response to someone accusing you of being a witch? I hope so, and I hope you would point out that some evidence would be nice. Snarkily requesting evidence is not a bad quality in an online community—it's a vital one. Stating things as facts and refusing to even attempt to provide evidence is a bad quality. If you claim that flat interfaces are more difficult to use, and someone else claims the opposite, how do you each attempt to justify your positions? Do you compete to see who can more quickly compare their opponents to YouTube commenters, or do you simply cite some evidence to corroborate your position?
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  "Citation needed" is intellectually lazy. It is middlebrow dismissal's slightly more popular cousin. "Citation needed" is never a counter-argument, but often stands in place of one. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burying your opponent in discovery: it is a challenge that consists solely of expecting someone else to do more work than they would like to. If you have a question about something, ask. If you disagree with something, then make your argument. Never simply post "citation needed" and think that you have contributed anything to a discussion. (Just FYI, it's also a "tell" -- some people will avoid engaging you if you post nothing more than "citation needed", just as some people avoid engaging others that end every sentence with "lol".)
  - baddox 14y ago
    If you're a skeptic (i.e. scientific skeptic), then you default to not believing a claim until evidence is introduced to support it. Is it intellectually lazy to say "citation needed" to someone that is accusing someone else of being a witch? I firmly believe that I have no obligation to prove that I am not a witch, and moreover that such attempts would be impossible. The person who makes a claim that has not been widely observed empirically is the person who needs to present evidence. In the case of user interface analysis, I thought most of us agreed that real data is much more important than a single user's anecdote. If someone makes the anecdotal claim that since they dislike a certain UI feature it must perform worse in general, that person needs to present actual evidence. Unless I have done my own research, the only thing I can do is request evidence and remain skeptical until I see some. It is equally fallacious for me to counter with my own anecdotal evidence. Saying "citation needed" is precisely the appropriate response to baseless claims.

richardwhiuk 14y ago

On a slightly different note, I find svbtle poor design. My eyes keep getting distracted by the elements in the top left and right corner of the page. With both of them, it isn't obvious what will happen if they are pressed. To me, it feels exactly what the author of this article was dismissing - design for design's sake, which make the site less usable than if they'd made it clear what they do.

RivieraKid 14y ago

Google Reader's top-level hierarchy is: 1) black menu bar 2) Google bar 3) options bar 4) left panel 5) list of items. The first problem is, that the logical structure is unnecessarily complicated, but that's not the point. The second problem is, that there's almost no visual distinction / contrast between the main segments of the page, which makes it harder to process mentally. It's like a file manager that shows the filesystem as a flat list of files instead of as a hierarchy of folders. My first impression of the new Reader or Gmail design was - messy bunch of black texts on white or almost-white background plus some almost invisible gray lines and a weird red button. It just seems messy and structureless. Svbtle or HN are different, they have much simpler top level structure - just a menu and a list of items. BTW, svbtle's design is superior to Reader's on multiple level's.

jmilloy 14y ago

The "citation needed" is one of my favorite know-it-all, over-objective "hacker" sort of memes. It's just hilarious. Not everything that is true or helpful has or needs a citation. Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs? And more than that, if you disagree, don't pretend to ask for a citation, just explain why you disagree. Most likely, even if you can't admit it, you'll find that you don't disagree, you are just misinterpreting. In this case, the statement is - an opinion based on experience - obviously true - coupled with an example anyways In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement. You probably received down votes because "citation needed" is lazy, uninformative, uninteresting, and, in this case, wrong.

ebf 14y ago
Fair enough, but considering I clarified why I said citation needed 14 hours before you posted and 5-10 minutes after I made the original comment, the fact that you and others are still attacking this statement, rather than the points I brought up, seems a bit silly to me. Sure, I could have provided this clarification earlier, but I have already conceded that the original comment was snarky and lacking in context for such a short statement. And to your specific comments: >Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs? Are you suggesting that this isn't testable? I guarantee Microsoft and others have tested it. If the author isn't prepared to provide data, then it should be presented as an opinion. "I believe that..." > - obviously true If it is obviously true, then there must be data to back it, right? >In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement. My point was in regards to this particular statement, which, in my opinion, is stated as a truth: >Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page. I've agreed in later comments that you can take "content over chrome" too far in UI design, but this statement is NOT necessarily true in regards to content existing on the same plane. Putting everything on the same plane does not mean that it is harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Poorly designed websites are hard to read, regardless of what plane the content exists. I merely pointed out that there are examples that do not fit this viewpoint. In fact, I would argue that these examples tend to be the most readable designs I've seen, but this is an opinion that I have, so I have made sure to clarify it merely as that: an opinion. As I've posted below, I am tired of people posting articles or blogs (and others upvoting these posts) that are not backed by any data. If something is posted as an opinion, then I agree that it doesn't need a citation. Unfortunately, there is a reoccurring theme that I've seen become more and more prevalent in the tech community, a theme where ideas are pushed as truths when the author has done nothing to show that there is actual, credible, merit to the conclusions that have been drawn. If these ideas were presented in any academic circle without evidence, they would be disregarded and laughed at. Yet here we are, discussing a post with a +200 upvote count, and the author has done little to prove his or her point, besides cherry pick examples that suit his or her conclusions. Content existing on another plane MAY improve readability, but I cannot say for certain. But I can point out that there are some very readable websites that have their content and navigation exist all one one page. I think we can all agree that bad design leads to bad readability. And content existing on the same plane isn't inherently bad design. Proper use of whitespace and good typography can go a long way to improving readability and the UX. See Bing results http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=hello+world&sc=8-7&sp=-1&sk= http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n&#3... (although I'm not a big fan of their social sidebar, but the results page and the top level navigation, is in my opinion, very usable) So why should anyone accept this presentation of ideas that are not prefaced with the fact that they are an opinion and are not backed by any data? Why is it snarky to ask for evidence of these ideas, yet in academia it is normal and encouraged to be skeptical? If I presented an idea to my boss, his first question would be where is the data to support this? If I proposed an idea to my advisor, he would ask why do I believe this and what is the supporting evidence for this claim. Why are these types of posts continually upvoted? Is it because we want agree with the author's idea? Is it because others have already upvoted this, so therefore the author is probably right? I honestly do not understand. It isn't like it is impossible to test this.

MaysonL 14y ago

Whenever I run into a blog with the un-subtle design, I hit the Readability bookmarklet: I can't stand the garish logos.

fudged71 14y ago

A functional interface needs to be understood. With each new interface you use, you load a new set of metaphors and interactions into your brain to help you navigate, understand, and use whatever it is that you are using. The interface needs to be relatable, or at least offer an explanation of how to use it. Having more experience with interfaces will make you more familiar with different design patterns and such, but there is a limit to how much we can relate to. This isn't about readability, but rather usability, so I find your examples poor. It's not just about typography and whitespace. Yes, they are simple and on the "same visual plane", but they follow design patterns that have existed on the web for many years: Navigation placement is on the top and left, links are either underlined or highlighted. On the other hand, svbtle is using bizarre navigation visual cues at the top which need some level of inspection or trust to use, and medium doesn't have a standard navigation at all. They are designing away elements of the webpage that people are familiar with.