Where the design community meets.
You're right. The community created a circumstance in which criticism that isn't adulating in nature is something noteworthy.
If your version of a "strong, healthy community" is one without conflicting judgments, in which all criticism is "constructive" according to your criteria, then you've got it exactly backwards. That's a community that's brittle to the core.
One wonders what sort of draconian "fix" you have in mind.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. I think most of us prefer the community stay free of Bill O'reilly style critisism.
If you'd like to turn this into a form and content debate, we can. But realize that what you're doing is ultimately making a tone argument.
That makes zero sense Eli.
Perhaps to you. I was referring to the question of separating form (how I'm saying it) from content (what I'm saying.)
That still makes zero sense Eli.
Just wanted to say I agree.
This is where Clippy would say "It looks like you're taking academic and feminist language to justify being a dick."
This is all incredibly childish. Eli, your comments were laden with a tone that was insulting, you could have very easily been critical of the work without that. You've tried to justify that tone in a number of pathetic ways. If you really want to be known as the "asshole critical guy" that's totally okay, no one can stop you, but you should expect this kind of response if that's your persona. If you can't take the heat, you know what they say...
I've rarely seen a redesign that had such an overwhelmingly positive response as Ugmonk's. If the customers are happy, and those customers also happen to be designers, then I think we can agree that it was a successful redesign.
There is plenty of thoughtful criticism within the design industry. Go read Armin Vit at Brand New for example. He does an excellent job dissecting the good and bad without resorting to inflammatory remarks. There is an expectation of decorum and intellectual rigor that comes with labelling yourself a "critic".
There is also an expectation of decorum and intellectual rigor that comes with labeling yourself "human," or "part of the community," and it reads like this: "Don't be a dick."
Really, it is that simple. He's a dick about work that people poured incredible amounts of effort into. He's beating down other designers, and that sort of behavior makes our already-touchy community more toxic. People are sensitive about their work, and while this tendency loosens with experience and age, it never completely disappears. So much of our work is based on intuition, and a person's intuition is a vital part of their "essence," for lack of a better word. Pointing out the flaws in a person's aesthetic, or the failings in the approach is not inherently hateful if the speaker/writer takes the time and effort to explain and teach rather than simply insult.
If all of his criticism didn't have an undertone of "How can't you idiots see that this designer is a lazy shithead? How have you let him take these shortcuts? His work is flawed in my eyes, and therefor must be a work of intentional malice toward the discipline of design as a whole." perhaps everyone wouldn't assume that he was just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
I’m trying to be fair here, but couldn’t you frame it the same way with design? —
If your version of "strong, healthy design" is one without conflicting judgments, in which all design is "constructive" according to your criteria, then you've got it exactly backwards. That's design that's brittle to the core.
Criticism of design criticism is something that should be freely debated as design itself. If we can’t challenge and evolve our different tools and approaches for evaluating design, then how can we evolve design itself?
Cap's comment said nothing about “conflicting judgements”. It did, however, mention “mean-spirited and purposefully incorrect analysis”. The fact that you misrepresented his his argument so spectacularly—again—is interesting.
He used the word "incendiary" twice, which means something that causes controversy and is contentious–in effect, something that involves conflict and disagreement over judgment.
If you don't know the meaning of words, you might want to use a thesaurus. You're the one here again spectacularly misrepresenting what I've done, which is quite interesting.
This belongs in /r/iamverysmart. He knows what "incendiary" means and you understand very well the connotation here.
Man, you are such a smug asshole.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.