6 ms·

Care to elaborate? I think that's more of a judgement call than any sort of fact. I have to assume what you're talking about (which makes me wonder why this is

Care to elaborate? I think that's more of a judgement call than any sort of fact. I have to assume what you're talking about (which makes me wonder why this is the top comment) is the screenshots within the post. That could go either way. For a second I was engrossed by them and almost thought I was looking at the actual page but it's not so bad that it warrants being called a confused mess. The images were necessary to get the point across and things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at. Nathan has a unique design style that both his blog and the ConvertKit landing page share elements of which is why I can see people getting a little confused but in the end, it's just a blog post, dude. And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off.

mnicole 14y ago
> things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at Until I noticed the low-res quality of the screenshot I didn't know what it was. Lossy images in 2013; great first impression. > Nathan has a unique design style I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, but when someone writes two books on design and hawks them on HN, people tend to be more critical of your work. I think it says something about someone's expertise when at least two of the HN posts on his products had people confused about design choices and what they were supposed to do on the page. > And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off. Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. HN also advocates raising one's prices to imply value, and I think that's why this and other posts have had people questioning the price points for the content. Additionally, I don't think "Good question. Not sure." is good copy for when I can expect a product I've paid for.
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. I don't really have a dog in this race but I am a designer and I am a writer, and hey, deconstructing sentences is fun. Starting at the top: > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This is not an accepted definition. In fact, it's a huge bone of contention. Exhibit A: the yearly surge of near-infinite "What Is Design!?" "Design Is…" articles. But let's pretend it is a canonical definition and then talk about what that would mean: > it's the ability to communicate. How do people communicate? They can only communicate if they hold things in common. Example: a language. What else? Belief systems. Culture. Background. Are aesthetics personal? Can different people hold different aesthetics? Can a mismatch between their aesthetics, like a mismatch in language or belief, cause a communication rift? Yes, yes it can. Ergo… > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, … is wrong. If you don't think it's not, you've never tried to design something modern and sleek for lawyers… or tried to persuade somebody who loves floral wallpaper to side with Adolf Loos. "Things that look better, work better," research has shown… but did they test it on people outside the culture that created the object tested? What is "better," exactly? This is why knowing your audience's taste (beliefs about aesthetic) is critical to communicating effectively and, ergo, why aesthetics are a huge part of design. > This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. Let's take the two assumptions here: 1. This page confuses a lot of people 2. That means it's not well-designed Even if you accept 1 as true, that does not lead to 2 as neatly as you suppose it does. What if it confuses people who are not his audience in the first place? What if it confuses people who aren't really interested in conversion rates, but simply interested because Nathan Barry is becoming an HN darling? Casual surfers, you might call them. If casual surfers are the only ones confused, then does that mean the page is not well-designed? What if what you consider "awkwardness" in the design actually attracts other people who are in the author's target audience, while repelling people who are the internet equivalent of windowshoppers? Is that not the definition of well-designed? Finally, I think what you meant to say is "This page confuses a handful of people who are commenting on HN" which is not the same as "a lot of people."
  - calinet6 14y ago
    I'm a designer and a marketer, and it's my business to know that it will confuse a lot of people. I'm not basing my feedback on my own confusion (that would surely be narrow-minded), but on my analysis of the layout and text and my ability to predict his target audience and desired result. I think it fails on several points, many of which are design-related. The aesthetic is fine, beautiful even. Full marks for that. But the page is confusing in that it is extremely long, it lacks focus, and it lacks organization. This is why, in as short an analysis as I could make, I deemed it "a confusing mess." In my professional opinion, most people will take one look at this page, start reading, get interested for about 12 seconds, scroll down one page, realize there are approximately 20 screens of additional content, and then click the back button thinking "I don't have time for this." If you don't understand that, then you're wasting time talking about design and its origin and meaning. Waxing philosophical over this is not helping this page get any better. In other words, you're over-thinking it.
    - ahoyhere 14y ago
      I am truly not sure why you're arguing with me and slinging ad hominems -- "you're wasting time talking about design and its origin and meaning" etc -- considering I never contradicted your personal opinion. The person I replied to was slinging "truths" about "What Is Design" which needed to be shut down. You, otoh, wrote what was clearly a personal opinion and didn't try to dress it up in lecture speak.
      - calinet6 14y ago
        Fair. Sorry for the emotional tangent :)
  - mnicole 14y ago
    It means I can look at it and get it without having to think about it. It has nothing to do whether or not it floats someone's boat, like the rest of your post alludes to. Clients? What design ends up being in the eyes of a client is not really worth discussing; that's a bastardization of our industry, not the definition or intention itself. No one actually knows what they want and why they should want it, but they'll tell you what to do anyway to justify the bill. On the opposite end of the spectrum, certain agencies can get away with charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for irrational, ill-thought out concepts because people just assume the cost ensures the quality. I don't know what makes someone an HN Darling. What I have noticed is that people around here seem to take a blog post's title at its word and upvote it without doing due diligence when it comes to topics they don't understand. Seeing names repeatedly must mean that they're qualified, rather than just someone marketing themselves.
calinet6 14y ago
The top comment on the post now contains some constructive comments with which I fully agree. Apologies for not having the time to elaborate.

mnicole 14y ago

> things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at Until I noticed the low-res quality of the screenshot I didn't know what it was. Lossy images in 2013; great first impression. > Nathan has a unique design style I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, but when someone writes two books on design and hawks them on HN, people tend to be more critical of your work. I think it says something about someone's expertise when at least two of the HN posts on his products had people confused about design choices and what they were supposed to do on the page. > And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off. Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. HN also advocates raising one's prices to imply value, and I think that's why this and other posts have had people questioning the price points for the content. Additionally, I don't think "Good question. Not sure." is good copy for when I can expect a product I've paid for.

ahoyhere 14y ago
> Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. I don't really have a dog in this race but I am a designer and I am a writer, and hey, deconstructing sentences is fun. Starting at the top: > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This is not an accepted definition. In fact, it's a huge bone of contention. Exhibit A: the yearly surge of near-infinite "What Is Design!?" "Design Is…" articles. But let's pretend it is a canonical definition and then talk about what that would mean: > it's the ability to communicate. How do people communicate? They can only communicate if they hold things in common. Example: a language. What else? Belief systems. Culture. Background. Are aesthetics personal? Can different people hold different aesthetics? Can a mismatch between their aesthetics, like a mismatch in language or belief, cause a communication rift? Yes, yes it can. Ergo… > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, … is wrong. If you don't think it's not, you've never tried to design something modern and sleek for lawyers… or tried to persuade somebody who loves floral wallpaper to side with Adolf Loos. "Things that look better, work better," research has shown… but did they test it on people outside the culture that created the object tested? What is "better," exactly? This is why knowing your audience's taste (beliefs about aesthetic) is critical to communicating effectively and, ergo, why aesthetics are a huge part of design. > This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. Let's take the two assumptions here: 1. This page confuses a lot of people 2. That means it's not well-designed Even if you accept 1 as true, that does not lead to 2 as neatly as you suppose it does. What if it confuses people who are not his audience in the first place? What if it confuses people who aren't really interested in conversion rates, but simply interested because Nathan Barry is becoming an HN darling? Casual surfers, you might call them. If casual surfers are the only ones confused, then does that mean the page is not well-designed? What if what you consider "awkwardness" in the design actually attracts other people who are in the author's target audience, while repelling people who are the internet equivalent of windowshoppers? Is that not the definition of well-designed? Finally, I think what you meant to say is "This page confuses a handful of people who are commenting on HN" which is not the same as "a lot of people."
- calinet6 14y ago
  I'm a designer and a marketer, and it's my business to know that it will confuse a lot of people. I'm not basing my feedback on my own confusion (that would surely be narrow-minded), but on my analysis of the layout and text and my ability to predict his target audience and desired result. I think it fails on several points, many of which are design-related. The aesthetic is fine, beautiful even. Full marks for that. But the page is confusing in that it is extremely long, it lacks focus, and it lacks organization. This is why, in as short an analysis as I could make, I deemed it "a confusing mess." In my professional opinion, most people will take one look at this page, start reading, get interested for about 12 seconds, scroll down one page, realize there are approximately 20 screens of additional content, and then click the back button thinking "I don't have time for this." If you don't understand that, then you're wasting time talking about design and its origin and meaning. Waxing philosophical over this is not helping this page get any better. In other words, you're over-thinking it.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    I am truly not sure why you're arguing with me and slinging ad hominems -- "you're wasting time talking about design and its origin and meaning" etc -- considering I never contradicted your personal opinion. The person I replied to was slinging "truths" about "What Is Design" which needed to be shut down. You, otoh, wrote what was clearly a personal opinion and didn't try to dress it up in lecture speak.
    - calinet6 14y ago
      Fair. Sorry for the emotional tangent :)
- mnicole 14y ago
  It means I can look at it and get it without having to think about it. It has nothing to do whether or not it floats someone's boat, like the rest of your post alludes to. Clients? What design ends up being in the eyes of a client is not really worth discussing; that's a bastardization of our industry, not the definition or intention itself. No one actually knows what they want and why they should want it, but they'll tell you what to do anyway to justify the bill. On the opposite end of the spectrum, certain agencies can get away with charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for irrational, ill-thought out concepts because people just assume the cost ensures the quality. I don't know what makes someone an HN Darling. What I have noticed is that people around here seem to take a blog post's title at its word and upvote it without doing due diligence when it comes to topics they don't understand. Seeing names repeatedly must mean that they're qualified, rather than just someone marketing themselves.

calinet6 14y ago

The top comment on the post now contains some constructive comments with which I fully agree. Apologies for not having the time to elaborate.