Edit: 1 bit lol
Edit: 1 bit lol
I think the first option is helpful; the second option is boringly obvious and not helpful.
As for the style, I found it to be entertaining and helped make a possibly dry topic seem a little less like a lecture and more like friendly advice.
Replace a doctor with a random stranger (which is what this website is, I don't know the person giving advice about the modals) on the street who is obese and tries to tell you with authoritative voice - "Hey! Listen, you're fat and this is how to lose weight!".
That's more accurate. I can agree with you about the entertainment value, I personally don't see it but if someone is entertained by it, good.
Look how well those those graphics get their message across, whilst also matching the style of the text. That takes a real steady hand (both literately and figuratively).
So I guess point taken.
To anyone who's familiar with the topic it's immediately clear from the copy that the author understands it.
Considering that the target audience is other designers, why does the presentation matter?
IMO it totally kills it. Others may not have as strong of an opinion. This is the age old question about separating art from the artist. With authoritative didactics, especially as a stranger on the internet, it is even more important to associate art with the artist so to speak. It comes with responsibility.
I fail to see the logic here. Good design helps people learn easier. It's not like designers have some unique ability to learn equally well no matter how poor the design is.
It's not like he used gifs or flashing colors.
Now I kinda want gifs and flashing colors.
(But, yes, it’s pretty awful and makes it hard to take the content seriously even though it’s good content.)