12 ms·

I find posts like these hard to parse. First of all, this article seems to be entirely opinion (which is fine, ofc), and could use some more supporting facts.

I find posts like these hard to parse. First of all, this article seems to be entirely opinion (which is fine, ofc), and could use some more supporting facts. The linked examples are great, but how does the iconography lack sophistication? I'm not trained as a designer. Second, I wonder how much of this designer's opinion (and my own) of Andriod vs iOS are influenced by the seemingly default notion that "iOS is prettier and better designed than Android." I can see that this is clearly true with earlier Android versions, and it seems true now, although it's a closer race. But what are the objective criteria that make iOS's design truly better?

foolrush 13y ago
“But what are the objective criteria that make iOS's design truly better?” There is no such creature as objectivity in design. It is all privileged vantage. When I was a young wee art schooler, we had a professor who made this abundantly clear by reframing the question of “What is good art?” The reframing of art as language. When we ask the question “What is good art?” or “What is good design?” we bury the privilege. Were we to ask “What is good language?” we can begin to see how displaced the very question is. Even then, it is likely our answers would be much more cautious, nuanced, and contextual. Most of Norman's and Buxton's writing on the subject tends to highlight the contextuality of design[1]. This echoes the much more complex notions surrounding its cultural role, much like language. And very much unlike the mucousy puddle in the original article... [1] http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-visualisations-inuit-wood-maps/ http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-vis... http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html

foolrush 13y ago

“But what are the objective criteria that make iOS's design truly better?” There is no such creature as objectivity in design. It is all privileged vantage. When I was a young wee art schooler, we had a professor who made this abundantly clear by reframing the question of “What is good art?” The reframing of art as language. When we ask the question “What is good art?” or “What is good design?” we bury the privilege. Were we to ask “What is good language?” we can begin to see how displaced the very question is. Even then, it is likely our answers would be much more cautious, nuanced, and contextual. Most of Norman's and Buxton's writing on the subject tends to highlight the contextuality of design[1]. This echoes the much more complex notions surrounding its cultural role, much like language. And very much unlike the mucousy puddle in the original article... [1] http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-visualisations-inuit-wood-maps/ http://www.visualisingdata.com/index.php/2013/03/tactile-vis... http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html