7 ms·

Hubris? Hubris is a loaded term that is purely subjective. He's one of the most talented designers I know, and he deserves to speak strongly. Humility doesn't n

Hubris? Hubris is a loaded term that is purely subjective. He's one of the most talented designers I know, and he deserves to speak strongly. Humility doesn't need to enter here. A humble designer is one who affects no change indeed. Designers should be less humble. When engineers or business guys or management or anyone makes a product lousier, they should get up and shout, and raise hell. Apple wins because the guy who cares the most about user experience happens to run the show. And last I checked, humble wasn’t really a word you could use to describe him.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tbrooks 17y ago
You are equating humility to being an ass-kisser. You can be humble and raise some hell; people will respect you for it. If you're a dick about things, people will soon learn to ignore you. You can dissent and be humble - the two are not mutually exclusive.
- rantfoil 17y ago
  In the glory days of Microsoft (circa Windows 95), the company culture was very different than in the Ballmer Administration. There used to be a class called 'Precision Questioning' that was specifically about being very efficient at asking very pointed, very direct questions. To the uninitiated, it came across as incredibly rude and disrespectful. But it was effective. Things got done fast, and BS was caught immediately, because the questions that got asked were rude, disrespectful, but vitally needed to make the right decisions. It cut through to the truth as quickly as possible. I think there's something happening here -- being direct and truthful hurts, but to create great things, you have to set aside feelings. Since Ballmer took over the reigns, Microsoft no longer teaches this course to its managers. Kinder and gentler, he said -- but there's a very real cost to kinder and gentler.
  - tbrooks 17y ago
    Microsoft's success (and failure in many areas) extends beyond communication styles. In part, Microsoft developed a "we know best" culture that fails to see both opportunities and hazards. Being so inwardly focused creates a low sense of urgency. Obviously AA and other large corps face the same problem. Still, it is possible have direct/pointed discussions and maintain humility. Take Zappos for example. Two of Zappos core values are 9.Be Passionate and Determined and 10.Be Humble. The two are not in conflict with each other. They've done well, as has Chick-fil-A - another large company that esteems humility.
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    I agree, direct and pointed questions do come across as rude and people need to learn to deal with them. "Why should I trust what your saying when your last recommendation cost me $100,000.00" sounds rude, but its just direct. However, if you add "you stupid idiot" to the end, then you've increased the rudeness without increasing precision. This is how a lot of the original post came off.
unalone 17y ago
And when Steve Jobs was 30, he was kicked out of his company because it turned out he was an asshole before he actually knew what he was doing. He almost ruined Apple, remember? And people hated him because he talked about things he didn't actually understand. Twelve years later, he'd matured enough to know what he was doing, and then came back in and blew us all away. But Jobs was a stupid kid too, and arguably he'd have had an easier time in the eighties if he'd known ahead of time just how ignorant he was. He's talented if you think knowing big fonts are pretty is talent. He's got a good eye for design, absolutely, but I've never seen him design anything with any complexity, and that's where things get tricky. If I'm designing rinky-dinky gadgets and HTML pages I can make them look good too. But the whole point of this post is that when you're designing major things, dumping a bucket of white paint on everything isn't enough. I think you ought to know that most, Garry, seeing as Posterous is the posterchild (ahem) of web sites that work brilliantly but aren't at all comely. It's hard to make complex things beautiful.
- mcav 17y ago
  Jobs isn't a designer. That's why Apple hires people like Ives. The best visionaries/CEOs aren't good at everything -- they're good at critiquing others' work and letting the experts do what they do best.
  - unalone 17y ago
    I absolutely agree. But my point was that saying being an asshole is okay because Steve Jobs was an asshole is a bit lopsided. Jobs was an asshole when he was ignorant, too, but he was still ignorant. Similarly, Dustin might be an ass, but that doesn't give his words an instant mandate.
bkbleikamp 17y ago
As a designer, I've never found arrogance a good strategy to get people to agree with the reasons for my design. Design, contrary to popular belief, is not that subjective - there are reasons and explanations for design decisions. Presenting them with arrogance without regard for another person's opinion is not a good way to get consensus. If you are talking to a business person, it is the designer's job to frame the decisions in a context that makes sense to them. Same with an engineer. Defend your decisions, but also know when you're wrong. Apple wins because they hire great designers. The designers do 10 pixel perfect mock ups, then narrow it down to 3, and then defend and refine the best one. Do you really think the iPhone design was pushed forward by one arrogant designer who had no regard for the opinions of others on the team? It took years to get it to where it is today. Is Dustin talented? Sure. But I know dozens of designers who could have produced the AA.com comp he did - it's easy to design without constraints.
- rantfoil 17y ago
  It goes deeper than the pixel. In fact, I could care less about visual design. I think that's an over-emphasized aspect of design. It goes to philosophy. Anyone can make pretty things, but it takes a damn intransigent defiance to do whatever it takes to make great experiences. I mean experience design. And experience design isn't about making everyone happy. It's about firing people when they get in your way, and breaking down fiefdoms that make products crap. A thousand people all compromising will result in a product or service that dies the death of a thousand paper cuts. This is starting to sound Ayn Randian, but sadly this may be an important aspect to the creation of great things. There's a reason why it takes a single auteur to craft a masterpiece, whether a movie, a website, or the experience of flying. Too many cooks DO spoil the broth. And it takes a person with the authority to cut things to one's vision to make great consumer experiences a reality. What people call Dustin's hubris and arrogance is merely his gall to point out the things that someone in control should do. It's something that is not exercised enough, and I think rather than cut down someone who aspires to the best, perhaps we should look to see what really sucks in our lives and focus on ways to make it better.
  - unalone 17y ago
wmeredith 17y ago
Hubris was the best I could come up with. Dustin himself describes it as vitriolic below, which is better fit I think.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

tbrooks 17y ago

You are equating humility to being an ass-kisser. You can be humble and raise some hell; people will respect you for it. If you're a dick about things, people will soon learn to ignore you. You can dissent and be humble - the two are not mutually exclusive.

rantfoil 17y ago
In the glory days of Microsoft (circa Windows 95), the company culture was very different than in the Ballmer Administration. There used to be a class called 'Precision Questioning' that was specifically about being very efficient at asking very pointed, very direct questions. To the uninitiated, it came across as incredibly rude and disrespectful. But it was effective. Things got done fast, and BS was caught immediately, because the questions that got asked were rude, disrespectful, but vitally needed to make the right decisions. It cut through to the truth as quickly as possible. I think there's something happening here -- being direct and truthful hurts, but to create great things, you have to set aside feelings. Since Ballmer took over the reigns, Microsoft no longer teaches this course to its managers. Kinder and gentler, he said -- but there's a very real cost to kinder and gentler.
- tbrooks 17y ago
  Microsoft's success (and failure in many areas) extends beyond communication styles. In part, Microsoft developed a "we know best" culture that fails to see both opportunities and hazards. Being so inwardly focused creates a low sense of urgency. Obviously AA and other large corps face the same problem. Still, it is possible have direct/pointed discussions and maintain humility. Take Zappos for example. Two of Zappos core values are 9.Be Passionate and Determined and 10.Be Humble. The two are not in conflict with each other. They've done well, as has Chick-fil-A - another large company that esteems humility.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  I agree, direct and pointed questions do come across as rude and people need to learn to deal with them. "Why should I trust what your saying when your last recommendation cost me $100,000.00" sounds rude, but its just direct. However, if you add "you stupid idiot" to the end, then you've increased the rudeness without increasing precision. This is how a lot of the original post came off.

unalone 17y ago

And when Steve Jobs was 30, he was kicked out of his company because it turned out he was an asshole before he actually knew what he was doing. He almost ruined Apple, remember? And people hated him because he talked about things he didn't actually understand. Twelve years later, he'd matured enough to know what he was doing, and then came back in and blew us all away. But Jobs was a stupid kid too, and arguably he'd have had an easier time in the eighties if he'd known ahead of time just how ignorant he was. He's talented if you think knowing big fonts are pretty is talent. He's got a good eye for design, absolutely, but I've never seen him design anything with any complexity, and that's where things get tricky. If I'm designing rinky-dinky gadgets and HTML pages I can make them look good too. But the whole point of this post is that when you're designing major things, dumping a bucket of white paint on everything isn't enough. I think you ought to know that most, Garry, seeing as Posterous is the posterchild (ahem) of web sites that work brilliantly but aren't at all comely. It's hard to make complex things beautiful.

mcav 17y ago
Jobs isn't a designer. That's why Apple hires people like Ives. The best visionaries/CEOs aren't good at everything -- they're good at critiquing others' work and letting the experts do what they do best.
- unalone 17y ago
  I absolutely agree. But my point was that saying being an asshole is okay because Steve Jobs was an asshole is a bit lopsided. Jobs was an asshole when he was ignorant, too, but he was still ignorant. Similarly, Dustin might be an ass, but that doesn't give his words an instant mandate.

bkbleikamp 17y ago

As a designer, I've never found arrogance a good strategy to get people to agree with the reasons for my design. Design, contrary to popular belief, is not that subjective - there are reasons and explanations for design decisions. Presenting them with arrogance without regard for another person's opinion is not a good way to get consensus. If you are talking to a business person, it is the designer's job to frame the decisions in a context that makes sense to them. Same with an engineer. Defend your decisions, but also know when you're wrong. Apple wins because they hire great designers. The designers do 10 pixel perfect mock ups, then narrow it down to 3, and then defend and refine the best one. Do you really think the iPhone design was pushed forward by one arrogant designer who had no regard for the opinions of others on the team? It took years to get it to where it is today. Is Dustin talented? Sure. But I know dozens of designers who could have produced the AA.com comp he did - it's easy to design without constraints.

rantfoil 17y ago
It goes deeper than the pixel. In fact, I could care less about visual design. I think that's an over-emphasized aspect of design. It goes to philosophy. Anyone can make pretty things, but it takes a damn intransigent defiance to do whatever it takes to make great experiences. I mean experience design. And experience design isn't about making everyone happy. It's about firing people when they get in your way, and breaking down fiefdoms that make products crap. A thousand people all compromising will result in a product or service that dies the death of a thousand paper cuts. This is starting to sound Ayn Randian, but sadly this may be an important aspect to the creation of great things. There's a reason why it takes a single auteur to craft a masterpiece, whether a movie, a website, or the experience of flying. Too many cooks DO spoil the broth. And it takes a person with the authority to cut things to one's vision to make great consumer experiences a reality. What people call Dustin's hubris and arrogance is merely his gall to point out the things that someone in control should do. It's something that is not exercised enough, and I think rather than cut down someone who aspires to the best, perhaps we should look to see what really sucks in our lives and focus on ways to make it better.
- unalone 17y ago

wmeredith 17y ago

Hubris was the best I could come up with. Dustin himself describes it as vitriolic below, which is better fit I think.