29 comments

  • Kyle DonmoyerKyle Donmoyer, 5 years ago

    Click bait. That's it. Edgy, edgy click bait.

    30 points
  • Randall MorrisRandall Morris, 5 years ago

    I stopped following them on Twitter after they starting taking ad-dollars from fiverr ($5/logo!). also, they've never met a "these 32 NFL team logos, redesigned" submission they didn't like.

    To hell with those charlatans.

    23 points
    • Hawke BassignaniHawke Bassignani, 5 years ago

      Charlatans. I think I’ll make that my word-of-the-week! Also gave an upvote for being 100% correct.

      6 points
  • George ChenGeorge Chen, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

    It really comes down to the fact Fast Co. have no idea what they are talking about whenever they talk about design.

    Fast Company magazine in the 90s' (original print edition) covered mostly "smart businesses" and dotcom companies. We all know how that went down. "Design Thinking" (or design in general) is the rage among the new generation of "smart businesses" these days of course they have to talk about design.

    18 points
  • Eli SchiffEli Schiff, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

    Yes, this is awful criticism. But it doesn't invalidate design criticism as a valid and useful practice.

    Here are some primers on design criticism:

    Criticism and the Armchair Fallacy is a framework on design criticism.

    Critical Sharks is an ongoing series on criticism in interface design.

    11 points
  • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, 5 years ago

    Because here’s the thing: all of these things are someone’s work. Someone worked their asses off on most of this stuff.

    Since when does "Someone worked their asses off on most of this stuff" absolve you from criticism?

    Obviously negativity for negativity's sake shouldn't be encouraged, but if you can back up your opinion then criticism can be a positive thing in my opinion.

    6 points
    • Michael Aleo, 5 years ago

      It obviously doesn't. You know I'm not saying people's work shouldn't get criticized ever, because people made it. There's nothing positive about what they're doing.

      2 points
    • Account deleted 5 years ago

      Yep. For every creator theres 1000 critics.

      1 point
  • Spencer HoltawaySpencer Holtaway, 5 years ago

    I didn't think designers read/looked at FastCoDesign, and didn't think FastCoDesign was targeted towards designers. It's a whole lot of "what people who aren't designers think design is about, and designers are into".

    Do they have any writers who are designers or have an education in design? It would be a little disappointing if the answer is yes.

    6 points
    • George ChenGeorge Chen, 5 years ago

      You've nailed it.

      Designers don't read Fast Co., and the readership of Fast Co are mostly "business people", VCs, b-school / MBA types that want to learn about design.

      3 points
  • Gus WezerekGus Wezerek, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

    As a designer who worked in an editorial/dev capacity for Co.Design for a few months, there's something I want to point out :

    Co.Design publishes good writing, but it doesn't get much traffic. Traffic is a metric of success for ad-driven online publications. That's the nature of the beast. You can learn a lot from reading Co.Design every day. Shaunacy Ferro, in particular, publishes some great architecture pieces. But a publication can't fund that writing without the traffic that comes from things like click-bait brackets.

    Co.Design is written about design, but it's not written for designers. The audience for general interest design writing on a check-back-everyday schedule wants different content than a Designer News readers might. To suggest otherwise is somewhat patronizing. Working there was the hardest way to learn UX lesson number one: You are not your user. I really struggled with that and eventually I left.

    I also want to point out that Michael's piece falls into the same easy criticism category that a lot of Co.Design pieces do. He could've learned a lot from simply reaching out and talking to one of the writers or editors there. Nobody is perfect, and it's incredibly difficult to write 500 perfect words, with a perfect, accurate, shareable headline, twice a day. The writers and editors who put their names on these pieces, more than anyone, are aware of that.

    So you can point at the writers, or the editors, and you can point at the readers for not sharing the right stories and you can point at the Internet, but in the end everything's complicit. Saying that Co.Design has a responsibility to spend 100 percent of its resources educating is a bit like getting mad when Google shuts down another free side project. A business is a business. The great thing about the web is that we have tons of other news sources and we can ignore the channels that we don't like.

    4 points
    • Michael Aleo, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

      Upvoted. Appreciate your insight buddy. I totally understand what you're saying.

      My issue is that in my opinion, it's all just overwhelmingly negative and unnecessarily mean. I didn't say they have to spend any percentage of their resources doing anything—I don't pretend to run a magazine or understand their state of online ad revenue. It's also clear from their comment sections that at least some slice of their audience is designers.

      This was just one designer's admittedly narrowly-focused reaction. I had higher expectations for them. Shrug. Cheers.

      0 points
      • Gus WezerekGus Wezerek, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

        Aye, I've agreed at some point with everything you wrote, so I can empathize. I think the negative tone you pointed out is a recent symptom of the underlying traffic exigencies--drama, contrived or otherwise, gets people talking.

        0 points
    • Jay WycheJay Wyche, 5 years ago

      | You are not your user.

      If I had a quarter for every time I had to explain this to a developer or product owner. I would be a marginally well off person.

      0 points
  • Ed AdamsEd Adams, 5 years ago (edited 4 years ago )

    While the tone of this article is quite aggressive and somewhat offputting as a direct result (expletives aren't always necessary), very good points are raised. The huge quantities of negativity in FastCoDesign's journalism isn't helpful.

    2 points
    • Jeremy StewartJeremy Stewart, 5 years ago

      I'm not a fan of expletives in most situations, but I don't question their necessity. You could say a lot of things are unnecessary. In this case, like you pointed out, the points he raised were excellent. That's what I focus on.

      Also, here's a funny clip of Stephen Fry talking about the swearing.

      0 points
    • Michael Aleo, 5 years ago

      Sorry you were offended. It wasn't the intention. I used one calculated f-word for emphasis, another to explain what GFD meant.

      While I disagree that the tone is quite aggressive, I do think what they're doing is totally unprofessional and uncalled for. It's just plain messed up.

      0 points
  • David AlandíDavid Alandí, 5 years ago

    I don't think that they hate design, Criticism is good!

    This post was hilarious! http://www.fastcodesign.com/3043419/what-the-apple-watch-does-that-googles-watches-dont

    0 points
  • Jon MyersJon Myers, 5 years ago

    Hmm, pot and kettle here.

    0 points
    • Michael Aleo, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

      Respect your opinion, but I'm not a well-known design publication. I'm one person who has posted exactly one Medium article.

      2 points
  • Brian MooreBrian Moore, 5 years ago

    The reasoning probably has to do with the thinking behind this video that's been making the rounds the past couple days.

    0 points