4 ms·

You need explanations as to which one is better? Really? 'Cuz all I need is a 5yr. old and a 55yr. old to point to which one they think is easier to use.

by kyro 17y ago

teej 17y ago
Justifying your design decisions shows that you have good communication skills and that your design was thought through, not just mindlessly designed to be "prettier".
- kyro 17y ago
  No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." And I think many of the explanations are really recognized subconsciously which lead us to favor one design over another. What you said reminds me of the article about the Googlers who asked for reasons why they should use 3 pixel borders instead of 2.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    > No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." I care.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    > No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." I do. There are a lot of designers out there who are obsessed with making things pretty and cutting-edge, but can't do proper UX to save their lives. Show that you're not one of them by explaining your design. > What you said reminds me of the article about the Googlers who asked for reasons why they should use 3 pixel borders instead of 2. Which is a worthwhile question - there is a hard science behind user interactions, it's not some magical, ephemeral art (though creativity certainly plays a role). What users think is "prettier" or "preferable" may in fact not be ideal in terms of usability. Case in point: Amazon.com has an god-awfully ugly website, but it's been proven time and time again to generate superior sales numbers. I'm sure we can redesign it to be more Web 2.0 and aesthetically pleasing, but that's not the goal of the business. Similarly, in AA's case the goal is to sell flights - aesthetics matters very little in this regard other than to establish your brand image. I do agree AA's site is in dire need of overhaul - and I do like your design from first glance - but you have failed to defend your position in any worthwhile way. You have failed to point out examples of how the existing site fails from a UI perspective (no, "it's obvious!" doesn't count), nor have you suggested how your design improves upon these failings.
yef 17y ago
How many 5yr. olds do you know that book flights online?
- GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
  three.
boundlessdreamz 17y ago
Yes, you need to explain why things are designed the way they are. There are whole disciplines around it called "Human Computer Interaction" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction and "Information Design" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Design
- quizbiz 17y ago
  thanks for linking to the readings.

You need explanations as to which one is better? Really? 'Cuz all I need is a 5yr. old and a 55yr. old to point to which one they think is easier to use.

by kyro 17y ago

You need explanations as to which one is better? Really? 'Cuz all I need is a 5yr. old and a 55yr. old to point to which one they think is easier to use.

teej 17y ago

Justifying your design decisions shows that you have good communication skills and that your design was thought through, not just mindlessly designed to be "prettier".

kyro 17y ago
No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." And I think many of the explanations are really recognized subconsciously which lead us to favor one design over another. What you said reminds me of the article about the Googlers who asked for reasons why they should use 3 pixel borders instead of 2.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  > No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." I care.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  > No one really cares about "We more clearly delineated required fields and section groupings." I do. There are a lot of designers out there who are obsessed with making things pretty and cutting-edge, but can't do proper UX to save their lives. Show that you're not one of them by explaining your design. > What you said reminds me of the article about the Googlers who asked for reasons why they should use 3 pixel borders instead of 2. Which is a worthwhile question - there is a hard science behind user interactions, it's not some magical, ephemeral art (though creativity certainly plays a role). What users think is "prettier" or "preferable" may in fact not be ideal in terms of usability. Case in point: Amazon.com has an god-awfully ugly website, but it's been proven time and time again to generate superior sales numbers. I'm sure we can redesign it to be more Web 2.0 and aesthetically pleasing, but that's not the goal of the business. Similarly, in AA's case the goal is to sell flights - aesthetics matters very little in this regard other than to establish your brand image. I do agree AA's site is in dire need of overhaul - and I do like your design from first glance - but you have failed to defend your position in any worthwhile way. You have failed to point out examples of how the existing site fails from a UI perspective (no, "it's obvious!" doesn't count), nor have you suggested how your design improves upon these failings.

yef 17y ago

How many 5yr. olds do you know that book flights online?

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
three.

boundlessdreamz 17y ago

Yes, you need to explain why things are designed the way they are. There are whole disciplines around it called "Human Computer Interaction" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction and "Information Design" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Design

quizbiz 17y ago
thanks for linking to the readings.