Where the design community meets.
Berlin, Germany Senior Product Designer at Lohnwerk Joined over 3 years ago
Omer hasn't posted any stories yet.
SF Compact is not a new font, so it's not news. It's not a serif typeface either. So, no, again.
It's not poster's responsibility to design a specific web page for the typeface Apple owns. He posted what he saw there, as a news, as it is a news (of a new typeface).
The title may include “[DOWNLOAD]”, but if the poster’s intention is not about sharing the download link, he would post the link where the content resides.
He could write “Apple Typefaces (with new New York typeface)”, but then somebody else asked why he didn’t just write it as it is now.
still the best illustration:
Dell P2715Q is still a good choice. You can find second-hand around 300-400$.
(Came here to post your article on the topic)
It's a must read if you are picky about your display: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
Also, I'm using Dell P2715Q and P2415Q (While it conradicts Marc's recommendation, I find these displays to be really good, especially for color reproduction)
It's a subjective topic... I'm using Magic Mouse nearly since it was released, and recently I tried a colleague's Logitech MX 2 Master for only a day, and the next 3 days I had really bad wrist pain. (It wasn't some tingling, it was really bad carpal tunnel pain) So in that terms, Logitech MX Master is an ergonomic disaster, for me.
Most (if not all) of the points are not special for "today". The introduction of the article and the title focuses on "why it's complicated today", but I didn't see any reasoning or opinion about why it's "complicated" and how is it (different than other times, like 1991 or 2003)?
To me the article sounds like "designing for users is hard and confusing", not like "today users are so complicated than yesterday because of this and that".
Especially No.2 baffled me, like when was the time that people didn't expect you to communicate? (There may be too many stimulants now, but also people never had that powerful "banner blindness" before too, so still there is no real comparison regarding yesterday/today, which I was looking for in the article because of the title)
Still it's not clear what it means and if it's accurate to define that designers design experiences. Let me explain what i mean...
First of all, experience is always contextual, which creates the experience. You may have the fastest car in the world, but if the road you are driving is not good enough for high-speeds, then it doesn't matter it's the fastest car or not, you drive as fast as the road permits.
"Desired" part is also assumes that there can only be the "appropriate usage", which eliminates the human factor of discoverability and it assumes that the product can only be useful in certain situation.
We, as designers are guilty for imposing "our way of doing it right" when we're designing and defining systems/products/services. Human-centered design is actually an act to break this bad habit, to think more about randomness and unpredictability about "the human experience".
User experience and human-centered design in that regard understood -mostly- wrong. UX is not about imposing "the best way", it's more about creating a ground for most of the use-cases to be successful; without confusion or distraction, and better with a positive experience.
Human-centered design is not about finding "the one and only right way", but instead being open to errors, and still perform well. This is the most important thing that most of the people are missing about User Experience. Because of that, they use the title "User Experience Design".
Human-centered design suggests "not to design for the best experience, but design the product/service in a way that even the unexpected use cases results in a good user-experience".
Nobody can design the "user experience", but we can "design for the user experience". (You design the product/service --> As a result everyone is having a unique experience of their own, whether it's desired or not.)
If the title "Designer" is not enough for ANY designer, then it doesn't matter what you put in front of it. The titles are there so you can hide your low self-esteem as a designer.
If you need "User Experience" wording in your title, and if you think a designer is not already cares about the User Experience without that title... yeah you're part of the problem and just trying to find "a better way" to explain what you're doing by making it more vague won't help to make it more clear for anyone.
So if I know nothing about design disciplines, how can I guess what you're designing? - you're an architect... you design buildings. - you're a city planner... you design navigation and the connections in the city. - you're a fashion designer... you design clothing. - you're a "Human Experience Designer"... and you only design a navigation in the website? Oh I thought you're kind of like a "life-coach"...
The problem is what makes design, design is... same for all design disciplines.
For example; - Design is a process, to create solutions for problems. - To Design, you first understand the situation in all of it's aspects - A Designer should have a world-view, or reflects a shared world-view, where the "ideal" results are also sharing common properties (easy to use, ecologically friendly, long-lasting etc.) - again... design is solving problems.
So, whether you're designing a building, or a jacket, or a car, or a mobile applications... underlying principles doesn't change. And a real design process focuses on the user, otherwise it's not really a "design" process. (or maybe intentionally doesn't focus on the user, to create a different result for any reason, but the key here is intentionality)
Death to User Experience Designer title, long-live the User Experience methodology!
All designers are "user-experience designers", and there is not just one agreed process on how to increase the positive emotions on the users and decreasing/removing all confusing and distracting parts. When someone says, they are User Experience Designer... it's not clear what they're designing, and this is the biggest problem, the source of the confusion. Without explaining who is the user and where they are having an experience, User-Experience Designer title can mean anything really. (Architects, Automobile Designers, Textile Designers etc.)
The biggest problem is, these definitions and titles are misleading and they do not clearly describes what kind of designer you are.
So you are an "(User/customer/human) Experience Designer". What you are designing exactly? You should be designing experiences and you should be designing experiences, everywhere there is humans.
So you design the experience in an airport too? (navigational signage, landing board interface etc.) So you also design the interaction between the customer and airport personnel? Also you design the experience we have in public transport? Or in our homes? Maybe you are designing the buildings too? And what about our "user experience" with our clothes... as a "user experience designer", you probably designing that too?
What? You only draw wireframes for websites, mobile/desktop apps, and you can only think of navigations if they are on these mediums?
Then what is the source of this grandiose delusion that you call yourself an "Experience Designer"? Your ego?
Designers are designers of what they are doing, not the results of what they are designing. You are not designing an experience, you design X, where the user/customer is having an experience. If you design a shitty X, people will have shitty experience with X. And you are X Designer, because that's what you're designing.
If you're designing a car, and you don't care about the experience people will have... than is that really a car you're designing? Or even the action you are taking is design?
(Sorry, I will continue bashing this kind of articles where people are just trying to look different while missing the whole point of design)
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.