Be nice. Or else.
Freelance since '08 Joined over 2 years ago
Mike hasn't posted any stories yet.
I know I'm going to be the outlier here but I don't understand why people on DN and Dribbble fawn over everything Stripe does.
All I see is a generic landing page with way too much copy, a lack of visual contrast and poor typographic hierarchy. I guess because pastel gradients?
I do appreciate that they don't use full-bleed cheesy lifestyle photos, but I still come away from this page struggling to understand their value proposition. This article does a much better job communicating the selling points than they do on their own landing page: https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/25/stripe-opens-express-sign-ups-for-connect-marketplaces/
Actually I've found this is one of the worst places to look for designers who understand marketing.
Most people here are extremely interface/UX focused.
So basically: Design, like music and every other cultural product is driven by trend and the creative process. Surprise?
I think we are witnessing the inevitable dead end of the content marketing noise machine.
When every single non-challenging topic that could possibly be broken down into a "snackable" blog post or listicle has already been written ad-nauseum....you end up forced to write things like "What fire-breathing Medeival Dragons can teach you about the UX of the airline booking experience."
In this particular case the short answer is no. The long answer is also no.
Outside of a logo, colors and typographic layouts and image stylings can't be copyrighted...and for good reason. Aesthetics is dictated by broad cultural trends, so to claim any of it is "original" is naive at best. A general rule of thumb (with exceptions of course):
You can own the rights to the function but not the form.
Or in the context of a website you can own the content but not the layout/styling of it.
The exception is in things like logos where the form is the function, i.e. to serve as a corporate identifier. It's why you can make a replica of a Gucci handbag design and sell it at H&M as long as you don't stick the Gucci logo on it. Since any patent that ever existed on the concept of a handbag itself (i.e. the function) has long since lapsed, and the form is largely dictated by trend, you don't see many successful handbag lawsuits unless logos are involved.
If studiobinder was telling people they are an invision product (e.g. They slap the invision logo in their navbar), then it would be illegal. It'd be almost impossible to make the case otherwise, seeing as the invision design is a really generic landing page.
Was Material Design the first time you saw design guidelines documention?
(not trying to be sarcastic, I'm sure since MD got so much press it was the first time many people encountered design guidelines since they're usually internal corporate docs).
If I had to guess this was thrown together by some shady web design firm trying to target American small biz law firm clients with flashy Silicon Valley-esque marketing.
Actually quite a clever strategy if they would have taken the time to change the website instead of stealing it!
Design talent is irrelevant when the tech you're building isn't there to back it up (and vice-versa).
I think the grid was an excellent case study in the fundamental ignorance of the general public and the power of the term "AI" in marketing Silicon Valley products (thanks Steven Spielberg!). I'm still blown away how easily they gathered massive press and $4+ million in preorders with just a slick mission statement video and zero demonstration of any tech.
Unfortunately they neglect to mention that in addition to knowing how to use your camera, you also need to find professionally cast talent with art directed styling and makeup to create those photos.
Using the rule of thirds and shallow DOF on a photo of Mama June still makes it a photo of Mama June.
I think ultimately this post gets at the false promise of what internet commerce was supposed to be. The official Silicon Valley ideology is that internet platforms are supposed to connect buyers and sellers in a more efficient way and create more wealth for everybody.
However in practice, they often end up just collecting outsized power/influence/profits in the markets they operate while encouraging a commoditized race to the bottom. In the actual reality of an internet business, your users are in fact a commodity from which you extract value by using your power as a gatekeeper. For example, it makes a lot more sense for Crew to start fitting buyers/sellers into commoditized "service packages" because they'll make more money that way (and they seem to be moving in that direction from my experience). This hurts the independent designer however.
For the powerful facilitators like Dribbble, if they actually care about the design communities they serve, they have a responsibility to design a platform with fair rules since they hold enough power to inadvertently change the marketplace and even pick winners and losers.