DesignStuff
ThoughtStorms Wiki
Stuff about design etc.
Q : Phil, I notice when you talk about design I can't tell whether you're talking about visual or graphic design, software design, architecture, interaction design, whatever. You just seem to blur from one to another.
A : I know :-)
Q : But, come on! Surely these are different areas where different principles apply, different methods and skills are needed to be succesful. You can't just argue that something that works for software (like ExtremeProgramming's rejection of Wiki:BigUpFrontDesign) can be carried across to graphic design of an advertising campaign, or town planning.
A : Yeah, of course. If I said that I'd be guilty of the error that I always accuse graphic design trained web-designers of : bringing the criteria of good print design to the web without noticing the difference of the medium. I guess what I really think is that there might be some more abstract design principles lurking behind all these domains, and that by chaotically flipping from one field to another, the specifics get criticised away and the blur lets you see the commonalities. (Though remember the DevilIsInTheDetails)
Rich Hickey on Design
Mini Design LinkBin
- FengShui of cyberspace : http://www.v-2.org/displayArticle.php?article_num=27
- CSSZenGarden : http://www.csszengarden.com/
- Single image narratives : http://www.adh.brighton.ac.uk/schoolofdesign/MA.COURSE/LSingleImage.html
- Cities and Buildings Database : http://content.lib.washington.edu/cities/index.html
- Design revolution : http://www.fastcompany.com/subscr/83/open_edlet.html
- design boom : http://www.designboom.com/eng/index.xtml
- (now http://journal.aiga.org/ (now with Momus essays)
See also :
- ArtToys, OnGames
Quora Answer : Why do many developers feel they are unqualified to design user interfaces?
Well because we are.
I mean, I know technically HOW to write HTML / CSS etc.
I have zero patience for the kind of faffing around that's needed to get pixel perfect responsiveness on 20 different sizes and shapes of screen.
In the past I've just sneered at this. I don't care if something isn't pixel-perfect or the wrong shade of blue. Why should anyone?
But I have to admit, in the real world, my hacked together "OK" UIs just don't look as "good" as the professionals. And I can't even understand why.
Basically I'm not interested enough in "looking great" that I'm prepared to spend the time learning how to recognise it or how to do it. Despite the fact that I have no conceptual problems in understanding HTML / CSS. I'm just not suitable for that. It's too boring.
And yet ... commercially, that kind of obsessive attention to detail. And huge investment in perfect pixels and palettes does seem to pay off.
Whether that itself is a good thing, I'm not convinced. I think the world would be a better place if most people were like me, didn't care how things looked, and cared more about how they worked behind the scenes. And had the conceptual agility to take a few rough edges in their stride.
That would mean a lot less wasted time and resources on such things. And a level playing field for good ideas from people like me who can't do slick.
But ...
... that isn't the world we actually live in. And I recognise that.
Backlinks (37 items)
- APIsAsLadders
- ArtStuff
- AutomatingInvention
- BeauSage
- BioMimicry
- BlobJects
- BootlegObjects
- ChipScapes
- ColourInDocuments
- CooperativeDesign
- Design
- DesignCanSaveNewspapers
- DesignTheory
- DesigningAWiredLife
- DominateDesign
- EvolutionOfTheHomePage
- HyrumsLaw
- OnDesign
- OnPersonas
- OnSpecification
- OnTypography
- PracticeChange
- ScreenAsRoom
- ServerlessArchitecture
- SoundDesign
- SpaceVsInformationFlows
- SpatialConstraintsOnInformationFlows
- StartingPoints
- StringCanPhone
- TheTimelessWayOfBuilding
- TimeDesign
- TypographyAsTruth
- UsabilityStuff
- UsabilityTsar
- ValuesBasedSocialDesign
- ViridianDesign
- WebDesign