Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

This is bad, comes across as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" rant

"There is no such thing as a “design perspective.”"

Hello? There's a whole theory of design: grids, colors, hierarchy, typography, etc. It's not as simple as "drawing something pretty" as most may think. This may of course clash with UX and a good professional will know how to balance them. (And of course some may pull this card as to push their personal preferences, as developers pull the "this can't be done" card often for the same reasons)

About 7: yes, it's a bad idea if you do it blindly, but it may often be your best guess. Adapt to your situation and check if it works for you.

View on HN

I love this comment, thanks for writing it. There is a DEFINITELY a theory and a method to design. I would never say otherwise, and you're absolutely right.

The second part of your comment was precisely what I was getting at: people who hijack "UX" or the "design perspective" as a way of justifying their preferences without any further discussion.

I literally saw this happen the day I wrote this post. They offered no other explanation than "The design perspective says..."

If you're working with a grid, you can certainly discuss how something fits or doesn't fit, or works within that grid. Colours have meaning, hierarchy is crucial in aesthetics and usability, and typography is a whole discipline of its own. I wholeheartedly agree.

If someone knew all of that and used it to justify their choices, they wouldn't need to co-opt the "design perspective" as their argument of choice.

It's when someone says that "Blue is the best colour for links" or "the 960 grid is the most usable" or "sans serif is the most readable" — from a design perspective — that we have a problem.

Thanks again.

If a person can backup or explain their use of terms like 'the design perspective' with appropriate nuances, it's not bullshit.

If they can't, then sure, they're bullshitting you.

That's not to say the simplified version of the rule isn't useful though. It can save us from forever explaining x years of experience to everyone we encounter, as well as potentially confusing people new to the subject. Teachers do this a lot, intentionally.

Agreed.

This really goes for “The research says…” as well. There is definitely good, peer-reviewed UX research out there, but if someone was well versed in it, they would say the conclusion of that research as fact instead of "The research says this is good".

Not sarcastic question: where is the good research? I'm a college student doing an independent study and would love more great sources!

You may try here http://www.nngroup.com/

The problem is that "design perspective" implies that you indeed mean that you are good at "drawing something pretty" or following trends. Otherwise, everything that involves building things to solve problems is design. In fact, I never understood what the clear distinction between design and engineering is. What is a "non-design perspective"? Trying to do something that doesn't work?

Yes, I know there's a theory of design -- I believe there are several, actually -- but I honestly don't care if you are unable to explain where this theory comes from, how it's validated and so on. And I apply the same criteria to engineering and science, by the way. Otherwise its just arguing from authority.

I suppose a non-design perspective would focus on implementing features rather than how the user can benefit from them most easily.

Two sites may allow you to do the same thing, but one of them may be superior from a design perspective.

A site that is stable, maintainable and easy to implement would be superior from an engineering perspective.

The design perspective depends on engineering aspects, since the user experience would be bad if the site is broken.

An apprentice knows all the rules. A master knows when to break them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com