Where the design community meets.
Designer Joined about 5 years ago
It certainly makes some valid points.
UX Pin sort of does that. The animation builder is not as powerful as the one in Axure, but the closest. It's also web-based (Figma has been lying, making everybody believe they've created the very first cloud-based prototyping tool). The problem with UX pin used to be the poor management of components and overrides, and the performance not as good as Figma, but that was some time ago.
In fact I believe that despite all the limitations, Bubble (or its evolution) IS the tool we are talking about. It's not advertised as a prototyping tool and it's still not user friendly and flexible enough, but it does allow to program without writing code, and includes conditional logic and database management, something that only Axure can do. But Axure is a prototyping tool, it mimics that only, is mostly limited to front-end, and the code is not production ready. Bubble code is.
As a confirmation, here is the real vs compact view: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/6baefh/berlin_subway_map_compared_to_its_real_geography/
Good point, indeed. When I saw the map initially, after a quick look I thought this map wanted to be a close representation of the real world, with distances that reflect the real ones, and the real, irregular shape of the Ringbahn. That would have the advantage of giving a more realistic representation at the expense of readability (given that it would be possible to represent it in a compact way, which might not be the case). Looking at this map more accurately, though, it's actually clear that it's a blend between the two: most lines are bent 45° and therefore what's the point of making only the ringbahn irregular? Because it's nice to see the dog's face profile?! I miss the rationale behind this choice, it actually makes no sense.
I don't think that this is a step forward towards a better UI, and it's just a matter of getting used to it. Removing the borders from the inputs only adds cognitive overload, because now you don't know what is editable, but even more importantly, you don't see what the target area is for clicking and editing. Even though the mouseover animations compensate to the point of making this acceptable, it actually gets worst when hovering: the label gets encapsulated within the text box together with the editable value, the caret jumps to a new position, and the horizontal alignment is all off, when switching from one control to the other. I still question the idea of removing borders: I'd rather limit them to a line underneath, or make use of differences in colour between background and input areas, without borders, or just make borders more lightweight, but removing the borders altogether, it seems too much. The clickable area of many controls is also quite small compared to the same UI in Sketch. The X/Y/W/H input fields have too much white space in between the label and the input field, which makes no sense considering that the border does not actually appear in between (which is, as I've said, an incomprehensible choice). Without mouseover, some of the inputs (such as text size) look like they are randomly placed in the UI, because there's so much white space around them. The "Text" section is arguably more cluttered than the Sketch equivalent, due to the weird alignment of the elements and the excess of white space. Others have pointed out the lack of contrast - after years and years, there's still designers who don't get it... and finally, I don't like the fact that the drop down to choose the font name only opens when clicking on the caret. It's good to have autosuggest, but then make it a combo, instead of a text box with one-option-only autocomplete. Overall, an ill-considered design, in my opinion. That's what happens when you have too many people bringing ideas on the table, some of them not very knowledgable, and you start sessions with brainstorming, which means you have no solid ideas to start with. Interesting that they've written a detailed article to explain the process they went through, and there's all the design clichés that one could possibly think of, like the post-its: when I see them, I immediately think of a team of amateur designers. I bet they must have also made paper prototyping at some point?! Sorry I just can't help getting cynical when I see this BS repeated over and over. The politically correct design, just because everybody is doing it that way, then we also do the same. Just the ukulele music is missing.
1) Great to see split view becoming a standard option, and that you can now mark an email as unread contextually, byhovering the listing item. Unfortunately the interaction is broken. It works the same way as on Outlook, and the previous Gmail lab extension (I've sent feedback to them twice, but I've never seen any changes). Emails should not be marked as read without the user actively clicking on them, that is just bad interaction design! For example if I delete an item from the inbox, the following email in the list should not be opened automatically (and marked as read). I didn't test it with search but I suspect there's problems there, as well.
2) Overall, the new layout has more empty space and looks more appealing, but I personally prefer the old "compact view" (and the new one is not as compact, which is bad). For practical reasons, I don't need my gmail interface to look nice, but I'd like to see more emails. I guess for people who don't use emails as much, the new look may be better than the old one.
3) The new "Compose" button looks much uglier than the old one. The icons next to the navigation links add clutter without adding any real value. Typography is just terrible: the same horrible font used for the logo is now being used as a header when you open emails, and I can hardly believe it because it's against all possible best practice. They are also rolling out the new font on other apps such as Google Maps and I can hardly look at it without crying. On top of that, it also allows for significantly less characters per line (4 characters less in the google maps search bar, tested on my mobile).
4) New features that I won't use (like snooze emails). In the old version, I chose to see unread emails first, and no social/promotion tabs on top, as they bring no value to me. In the new version, it defaults to tabs on top and read emails are included on top of the page. I suggest that you leave the settings as they are, rather than changing them at your will? Don't force me into using functionality that I don't need.
5) Why those top centred, out of alignment and huge check boxes, next to each listing item? I really don't get why UI elements are getting worst than in the previous version. Those check boxes just don't fit. And if capitalised Fitt's law is the argument, then I'd rather increase the clickable area around the checkboxes; you don't need to make them bigger!
6) "Smart replies"... kind of sad!
7) Good to see red notifications for potentially dangerous email.
You can also check UX map: ux-map.com Currently it works with Axure RP, a version for Sketch is on the way (updates to follow on the social media channels).
Quite bad, indeed! But at least they are experimenting with an overlay. They used to provide an overlay-based UI, but then they've abandoned this approach, in favour of the terrible page based approach that you can still see today. The reason for doing so is beyond of my comprehension. My browser is set to search for images on bing, not on google.
Is the test run remotely? Are they getting paid for committing to a 90 min interview? I would expect that since these guys are investing so much of their time without even knowing if it's a good company to work for. And if they are supposed to come to your office, then it's even more than 90 minutes. During the course of the 90 minutes, I would also expect the manager who is interviewing to undergo some sort of testing, so that the candidate could see if he's dealing with a good functional team or not.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.