8 ms·

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 equi

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.

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.