Be nice. Or else.
Art Director Joined almost 5 years ago
I'm not seeing how this refutes the idea altogether. While typefaces broadly do render at varying visual heights and sizes for the same specified type size, type generally doesn't change for the user or viewer in the middle of reading something. This article provides a thoughtful example of how to establish vertical rhythm using a specific typeface within a specific context. As a designer, it is on you to make these principles work in context of your own design (if you decide they are appropriate for your design problem).
The point of all of this is that vertical rhythm is important to be mindful of when designing for optimal readability. To do that consistently across a website requires some level of standardization, especially when the same content has to accommodate numerous screen sizes. There is a place for optical judgment, and a place for standardization. Don't be so dismissive of there being a "right" way of approaching the problem. Be a professional, use your empirical judgement.
As you mentioned, good vertical rhythm emerges as a result of appropriate spacing. But just to restate for context—just as text is difficult to read when the measure is too long, dense/long paragraphs of text are difficult to read as well. It is a matter of perceiving figure (text) from ground (page). You need adequate spacing to properly make that distinction so the reader can more easily keep their place when reading.
To answer your question though, just like the golden ratio, the baseline grid is just a tool. Use it or don't, it's just one way of establishing good spacing and structure. Whether the reader can perceive that a baseline grid was used or not depends on how familiar they are with how typography is designed or treated using a baseline grid. If familiarity exists, then sure, they might notice and appreciate it. If not, then it’s not likely it will be noticed. The baseline grid by itself does not have properties that exist outside of the person perceiving it, but as a means to making text more readable, it is certainly valuable.
We believe the philosophy of Downvoting should be mainly for unwanted content, spam, etc, and not for disagreeing with a comment.
While I appreciate distinction, I have a hard time separating the latter from the former. Agreement/disagreement is inherent in the function of the voting.
the "Pay $15 or More" tier alone is a steal, just for About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design and Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services. I'm not familiar with any of the other books though.
What part of the creative process are you wanting better representation of?
I think since a large part of the creative process is often not visual, it is difficult or cumbersome to capture that in a single snapshot. The challenge there is that it takes more effort to document process stuff because you are in the middle of doing it. Posting the finished product is a lot less intensive.
I've found some great insights into the process on Youtube, Skillshare and even Behance/Twitch streaming—places where you can get an over-the-shoulder type of perspective.
Dribbble is a community. Communities are what they are because the people in them have things in common. For Dribbble, it ends up being certain visual styles and ways of displaying creative content.
Granted, a lot of content has been created for specifically for like-chasing on the platform, but that is inevitable for any platform with a similar social construct. And there is nothing wrong with that either. It's not like there is some external supreme visual style out there that dictates how design presents itself, and by jumping on design trends we go against it.
When it comes down to it, we design for people. People have likes and preferences. Catering to those likes and preferences will get you more recognition within that space. There is no "right way" to use it, people will use it how they do.
On a practical level, I agree. Your circumstances and the people around influence your perception and actions at every level. So if your feedback loop of those influences is negative, it is extremely hard overcome them.
On the other side of the same coin, we are not static by any means. We all have the capacity to change (for better or worse). I definitely agree that success equates to talent, timing and practice, but I'd go further to say that those three aspects are also fluid and driven by each other.
I don't accept that people are born with specific talents though. Disposition (nurture) and advantageous characteristics (nature), sure—but to realize a specific talent is to put in the work and take advantage of opportunities for growth when they present themselves. Having good teachers and mentors is also extremely important.
Interesting--thanks for the insight. I'll give it a spin.
You can absolutely acquire talent, given the right circumstances. How do you think talented people became talented at what they do in the first place? How good vs. great someone is at something is explicitly dependent on the specific person, and their place in the world and time because we cannot be removed from it. Context matters.
Saying that people are "born with talent" is patently dismissive of they effort they put in to get there, and the effort put forth by the people who helped them along the way (directly or not).
However, the "right circumstances" are fundamentally important and not directly accessible to everyone, and it is naive to think otherwise. We are all products of our environment, experience and interactions with those around us. The nature vs. nurture debate is irrelevant because it is both. Nature and nurture. They are not separable from one another, and you are not separable from them.
(in regards to the topic)
As designers, I think we all consider what it means from time to time. If you don't have a firm perspective on what your personal definition of being a designer is and how it ladders up to your professional responsibilities then it's a pretty natural question. "Am I even doing this right? Am I experienced enough to be doing this? Am I even qualified? Can anyone do what I do?" Classic impostor syndrome. That pseudo-nihilistic ethos you mention is pretty compatible with that notion.
But it is only constructive to ask "can anyone be a designer?" in order to understand what "being a designer" means to you. All products, goods and services that are made by humans are designed. So, if you solve or contribute to solving the problem of creating those items, then you are a designer.
Defining design in the broadest sense is as simple as considering a situation and acting to create an improved situation (iterative, novel or otherwise). The reality of it is that we don't design design because we are designers, we are designers because we design.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.