5 ms·

>But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production! I .. I'm not sure if you're s

>But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production! I .. I'm not sure if you're serious, but that is either smart, insulting or both. It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there, but noting it as a non-production look, - that's a bit bleak. The design looks great. I can't wait to hear my friends opinions as I don't use Facebook on regular basis.

jmduke 14y ago
My friends aren't overwhelmingly ugly, but they certainly don't take production-quality pictures. Judging a social app's beauty by the stock photos is like judging the fit of a shirt by how it looks on the model.
- catshirt 14y ago
  this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves. likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    but facebook doesn't choose what photos get uploaded. They simply provide the platform for it and the content is up to the users. Most users take photos with camera phones, not DSLRs.
    - anthemcg 14y ago
      But to be fair, when you present your designs for the consideration of stock holders ( which this probably is) its important to make it look its best and since Facebook users technically can upload awesome DSLR style photos and it makes the design look far better, I forgive him and understand that this kind of presentation is more nessesary than really representing what it will look like.
    - catshirt 14y ago
      your argument is fallacious in that i never made the assertion that Facebook chose what photos got uploaded. my point is exactly the opposite of that. (but i reserve some responsibility here- see my other response which clarifies a fallacy in my own argument). a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.
      - acchow 14y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Most comments above your's point out that the linked design prototype looks attractive mostly due to the high quality images. If implemented as the actual Facebook design, much of the appeal would be lost. That is, the prototype did not take "shit user generated photos" into designs at all. Facebook on the other hand, does.
      - TeMPOraL 14y ago
        > as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos. The point is, the new layout discussed here relies in some way on the pictures being not shitty. The discussion here is about a layout for content that is not under Facebook's control.
  - balloot 14y ago
    uh....You do realize that almost every photo on FB is user-generated, right?
    - catshirt 14y ago
      your confusion may stem from the fact that i mistook the original analogy. they were calling the shirt into question. my response was calling the model into question. my mistake should be clear if you read both posts carefully. i will elaborate just in case. every photo on Facebook is user generated. an overwhelming majority of them are bad photos. Facebook is completely aware of this. as such, it would be an irresponsible design choice for Facebook to create such a huge presence for those photos, like the design proposal does. likewise, it is irresponsible of the proposal author to only use high resolution stock photos of decent looking people for their design. perhaps my original post was not crystal clear. in retrospect i maintain that it was a fine explanation, albeit terse- and out of context given my misinterpretation. regardless of my post's clarity, your response makes you sound like a dick.
      - Terretta 14y ago
        You've descended to name calling, taking offense over people not realizing your "mistake should be clear". I respectfully submit that had what you meant to say been so clear, or had you followed your own advice to "read both posts carefully", perhaps you wouldn't have made the mistake twice.
        catshirt 14y ago
        not offended by any realization or lack thereof. i conceded; my point was entirely backwards given my misinterpretation. but the parent reply didn't warrant an apologetic tone. snark begets snark. i don't think "your tone sounds dickish" is name calling. but you're right, uncalled for nonetheless.
maratd 14y ago
> It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there Well, 50% of the people on Facebook don't have cleavage. The other 50% are doing duck faces instead of smiling. You can't design around some abstract ideal.
Firehed 14y ago
I'm kind of joking about ugly (and completely serious about the names[1]), but using real photos in your mockup will give you a much better idea of how it will look in the real world. Sometimes the lack of consistent polish will make the whole thing fall apart, so something that looks great with high-quality stock photos will look terribly with everyday average photos. I'd bet that would be the case here, with the focus on "clean" design. Of course if you're making a website for models or photographers, then ignore that completely. The take-away here is to know your audience, and design accordingly. Facebook should be (and currently is) optimized for getting a quick pulse on what's happening in your social circles, and the designs presented here are a poor way to accomplish that. [1] Long names cause weird word-wrapping and overflow issues in many designs. India seems to have a high density of (by my standards) unusually-long names, so if you expect to have a lot of Indian users that kind of thing is really important to consider.

jmduke 14y ago

My friends aren't overwhelmingly ugly, but they certainly don't take production-quality pictures. Judging a social app's beauty by the stock photos is like judging the fit of a shirt by how it looks on the model.

catshirt 14y ago
this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves. likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  but facebook doesn't choose what photos get uploaded. They simply provide the platform for it and the content is up to the users. Most users take photos with camera phones, not DSLRs.
  - anthemcg 14y ago
    But to be fair, when you present your designs for the consideration of stock holders ( which this probably is) its important to make it look its best and since Facebook users technically can upload awesome DSLR style photos and it makes the design look far better, I forgive him and understand that this kind of presentation is more nessesary than really representing what it will look like.
  - catshirt 14y ago
    your argument is fallacious in that i never made the assertion that Facebook chose what photos got uploaded. my point is exactly the opposite of that. (but i reserve some responsibility here- see my other response which clarifies a fallacy in my own argument). a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.
    - acchow 14y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Most comments above your's point out that the linked design prototype looks attractive mostly due to the high quality images. If implemented as the actual Facebook design, much of the appeal would be lost. That is, the prototype did not take "shit user generated photos" into designs at all. Facebook on the other hand, does.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      > as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos. The point is, the new layout discussed here relies in some way on the pictures being not shitty. The discussion here is about a layout for content that is not under Facebook's control.
- balloot 14y ago
  uh....You do realize that almost every photo on FB is user-generated, right?
  - catshirt 14y ago
    your confusion may stem from the fact that i mistook the original analogy. they were calling the shirt into question. my response was calling the model into question. my mistake should be clear if you read both posts carefully. i will elaborate just in case. every photo on Facebook is user generated. an overwhelming majority of them are bad photos. Facebook is completely aware of this. as such, it would be an irresponsible design choice for Facebook to create such a huge presence for those photos, like the design proposal does. likewise, it is irresponsible of the proposal author to only use high resolution stock photos of decent looking people for their design. perhaps my original post was not crystal clear. in retrospect i maintain that it was a fine explanation, albeit terse- and out of context given my misinterpretation. regardless of my post's clarity, your response makes you sound like a dick.
    - Terretta 14y ago
      You've descended to name calling, taking offense over people not realizing your "mistake should be clear". I respectfully submit that had what you meant to say been so clear, or had you followed your own advice to "read both posts carefully", perhaps you wouldn't have made the mistake twice.
      - catshirt 14y ago
        not offended by any realization or lack thereof. i conceded; my point was entirely backwards given my misinterpretation. but the parent reply didn't warrant an apologetic tone. snark begets snark. i don't think "your tone sounds dickish" is name calling. but you're right, uncalled for nonetheless.

maratd 14y ago

> It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there Well, 50% of the people on Facebook don't have cleavage. The other 50% are doing duck faces instead of smiling. You can't design around some abstract ideal.

Firehed 14y ago

I'm kind of joking about ugly (and completely serious about the names[1]), but using real photos in your mockup will give you a much better idea of how it will look in the real world. Sometimes the lack of consistent polish will make the whole thing fall apart, so something that looks great with high-quality stock photos will look terribly with everyday average photos. I'd bet that would be the case here, with the focus on "clean" design. Of course if you're making a website for models or photographers, then ignore that completely. The take-away here is to know your audience, and design accordingly. Facebook should be (and currently is) optimized for getting a quick pulse on what's happening in your social circles, and the designs presented here are a poor way to accomplish that. [1] Long names cause weird word-wrapping and overflow issues in many designs. India seems to have a high density of (by my standards) unusually-long names, so if you expect to have a lot of Indian users that kind of thing is really important to consider.