Be nice. Or else.
Freelance since '08 Joined about 2 years ago
Mike hasn't posted any stories yet.
100% agree with your findings on Atomic design. I've encountered exactly the same problems.
In theory, Atomic design sounds really good, I mean who doesn't like to posture as if their design system is something scientific...using words like molecules, and atoms, etc.
But adding another layer of abstraction on top of your design system in the form of counterintuitive jargon is completely backwards. Design is supposed to clarify and simplify complex things, not make them even harder to understand.
Who are the 7 people who upvoted this?
This is a random list of design related things.
Use of Grids, Use of typography to communicate things, Use of different color palettes, animation, 3D
Excellent insights! Whoever wrote this really has their finger on the pulse. I feel ashamed that I clicked.
Have to agree about the use of junior level descriptors combined with senior/management level expectations (i.e. Like running client workshops). It's fairly confusing.
I doubt you'll be able to fill that role with someone competent in all those areas without raising your salary offer significantly beyond standard industry offers.
I know things like "training" and "mentorship" are bad words in today's business culture, but....I'd recommend hiring a more 'visual' designer and training them in the UX oriented tasks and the client workshopping.
If you hire a UX/research person hoping they'll come through on the visual work I think you'll be disappointed. Research process can be taught but taste can't as it's tied to things like culture and personality.
Please do not recommend this to other people. This is the medical insurance equivalent of using "essential oils" instead of real medication if you are sick.
While it fulfills the requirement under the ACA, this is only because religious people represent a large percentage of the voting population in the US and they get coddled with preferential treatment as a result. This program will likely be of absolutely no use to you if something catastrophic happens (i.e. You need 400k worth of surgery and have to take a $20/pill medication for the rest of your life). I sincerely hope you don't get sick. Good luck out there.
If you're a healthy young male, it'll only be around $150ish/month for the lowest level of real insurance. And your premium if you don't use it will help pay for an elderly persons care (minus some profit margin for the insurance co). That's the real medishare.
I was wondering the exact same thing. And not only was there just a few weak questions, the answers were hilariously generic.
Welcome to the internet in 2017 I guess?
Quite frankly, this reads like a load of BS to cover up the fact that they're firing a bunch of people. They've been living high off of 100+ million in VC dough while conveniently ignoring the fact that the content industry is insanely hard to make money in.
Even though Medium wasn't covered in banner ads, it was still just a bunch of people trying to sell you things....themselves. Content marketing and clickbait is not something users will ever pay for. The amount of wannabe thought-leaders writing 3 paragraph "listicles" filled with generic advice and business jargon was growing to near-Linkedin levels.
Ultimately, Medium will fail because good content requires people with valuable insights to spend many hours planning, researching, and crafting that content. Very few people will do that for free.
Does this also mean those clips they've been putting in between TV shows for the last 70 years are just corporate messages meant to sell me things?
I actually recommend designers work for agencies (or start-ups) in their early career and don't move to that cushy big company gig until you've built up some experience in a more fast paced environment.
The fact is, there is no other place where you will get to work on so many varied and different projects, in such a short amount of time than an agency. Now there are good agencies and bad agencies just as there are good companies and bad companies to work for, however on average the agency environment will be much more fast paced. It will be stressful and uncomfortable at times but you will get better, faster. You'll be building things from the ground up and learning what processes work and what doesn't work.
My opinion: Working for a giant, stable company is better in many ways. None of them have to do with your development as a designer. The Money, Stability, and Prestige they add to the resume are the main benefits. However for the most part, you will be doing minor incremental improvements to already successful products and getting better at corporate politics rather than design.
This is perfect for when you're ready to settle down and already have the experience and chops developed from agencies or startups, but if you go to the big company first, I think you're missing something. You'll be trained to meet the end goals of that particular flavor of corporate machine and it'll be very easy to stay employed while doing mostly nothing.
I just got a mental image of a millennial living somewhere in Bushwick (obviously)....hiding behind a couch in a dark room....while the light from their monitor cuts through the darkness...the Vice comment section is up....BOO!
Hilarious. Nothing is more scary than words on the internet. It's not like you can just choose not to read them or not click.
I'm sure they probably realized their readership doesn't want to be confronted with ideas outside the bubble they live in (ie. the "people on facebook" phenomenon), and moderating out thoughts that don't agree with your editorial slant is super expensive in terms of labor cost.
I don't think I've ever read a single article about design that has argued for not putting rational thinking behind a design solution.