Be nice. Or else.
San Francisco [timsilva.com] Designer @ Encide/Verizon Joined over 2 years ago
Same here! The performance is tempting, but the font issues really bug me. I'll keep it installed, but I don't know if I'll ever make it my primary again.
Great questions; I don't have many answers. Most soft-sciences have this looming issue. The truth is, humans are far too complex and fluid to put into boxes. Mental illnesses (I studied lots of abnormal psychology) are often dealt with using best-guessing. The DSM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) is known to unreliable. It is important to attempt to do this, but there are limits to our accuracy. It isn't the fault of psychology or psychologists; humans are simply too complex, changing, and riddle with unexpected variables. Can Psychology be a hard science? I'm not so sure. It's like predicting the weather; we can only go so far. Personality tests are far worse than the DSM in that they are often popularized by the same types of people who sincerely believe in ghost stories and reject most forms of reason. :p
Regarding analytical psychology, introverts and extroverts are never static. Some days and in some contexts we can all play either role. The truth, imho, is that we are mostly 50/50 each, with 10-20% degrees of variation depending on the context. There are extreme cases, but those aren't common. To me, this doesn't make the categories reliable or even useful.
One of the only measurements of humans that does have both internal and external validity (although it is also iffy) is IQ. Countries with higher IQs tend to be superior.
The Myers-Briggs test is pseudo-science and just as illegitimate as astrology, reading palms, and carrying dead cats to get rid of warts. These types of silly games shouldn't be taken seriously in the professional world and we should try to avoid spreading it within our industry. I have been seeing folks like Sean Wes spreading this nonsense for a few years and it really bugs me that the UI/UX/entrepreneurial communities are so naive about this stuff. :/
If you don't believe me, watch some criticism videos about it, or just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism
I have a degree in psychology and sociology, and I have been following the likes of skeptics including James Randi and Penn & Teller who have been exposing bunk science and claims for many decades.
Santa Claus is a lie, and so are personality tests.
Congrats on the massive release! The custom grid system is really impressive from a technical perspective. Also, I really dig all of the hover effects on the large thumbnails. I remember when the first version or two came out, really blown away by how much this has matured.
Forgive me if I missed it, but are all of the example sites from the showcase page based on S4, or are some of these older?
Logopedia (http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Logopedia) is also worth looking at. I use them all the time, free and open. The problem is that the information is often limited to just the logo assets in vector (if lucky) or transparent PNG in most cases, and sometimes lo-res JPGs. Fonts and colors aren't often included. The site is great, but it leaves a lot to be desired.
I truly enjoyed the conversation you guys! To many more episodes. =)
I agree with the general sentiment that between the significantly rounded corners and the notch, this new hardware creates more problems than it purports to solve.
This is a really thoughtful article, thanks for writing and sharing it! :)
While this history is open to interpretation, my broad take-away is that not all trends are objectively better because they are newer. These all have trade-offs that exist completely independently from the year(s) in which they were trending. While the intent behind many of these shifts is often well intended (by the professionals who adopt it), I suspect it has more to do with our obsession of wanting something new and different than it does about wanting to improve the experience for users.
Personally, I think 2012 and 2014 are both great examples from two directions/philosophies. These two are probably the the most effective solutions for real users across most groups. 2014 is more likely to have contrast issues depending on the background which puts it at a clear disadvantage to me.
Ha, I couldn't help but have the exact same thought. Using a similar name to trendy brand names is the quickest way to not be taken seriously. They might as well call use crelllo.design for bogus points. :p
Neat; best wishes on the project. Seems like a broad enough one to pick up lots of new tricks. By validate, I just meant having you (or someone) manually confirm that the submitted domains are indeed dead. Although that might be necessary as an ongoing service for each domain now that I think about it which might not be sustainable.
Lots of real website are on this. I got edison.com and tesla.com right off the bat; both are alive and well. There appears to be no more than ~30 on here, and no one is validating them. :/ Cool idea tho, just needs some real content.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.