Be nice. Or else.
Ahmedabad, India Product, UX and UI Designer Joined 9 months ago
Only today? :P I go through that debate every time I am between projects, and often even when I am on a project. (I work as a consultant).
If you designed the site, I would have you know that I kept clicking on the Sign Up button multiple times and thought it wasn’t working. Then I noticed the email input box with dark background blending into another section. Those were frustrating 45 seconds.
Apart from that, I fail to see its value proposition over Flipboard or countless other similar products. If anything, I want to see less personalized products. We all know what echo-chambers have been doing to us lately.
Very nice site design, though. :)
So you made a website for betting tips, in a country where betting is illegal, and even spelled the word wrong in your url?
Sneakers and athletic-wear in general has picked up big time in last couple of years, Nike leading the way. People see one good shot, and with availability of high quality photos available like @marcel said, it’s an easy pick. Add to that the fact that Nike has a “Design your own sneakers” feature, and you have a use-case designers want to salivate after.
Guilty of working on a concept of Nike shoes AR app. :P
In iOS 10 - http://imgur.com/w0uCdNY
These are awesome. As a designer, one is so preconditioned to pick the right solution straight away. When you see stuff like this, the creativity despite non-practicality inspires.
Thanks for this response, Josh. I was part of a collective until recently, so apart from Fisdom we wrote a lot of about other projects that could get us more visibility. Now I am revamping my site and writing case-studies for each of my projects.
By the way, that sole Medium article got us quite bit of traction. It was featured on Sidebar newsletter and later syndicated by InVision on their blog, earning us quite a few leads. :)
I listen to Soulection all the time - soundcloud.com/soulection/
One can take any subject matter and argue about checking the sources. This article though goes that extra mile to naming freelance designers and prototype tool companies. They stopped only little short of naming InVision and Marvel.
Both the companies are out there to do business. If part of their strategy involves writing UX articles to convince their that they understand the pain points they are solving, should we doubt their content only based on the fact that the content was backed by a prototype tool? That is my whole point which becomes even more true in case of the freelance designers without marketing budget and a lot of knowledge to share. One cannot grudge their intention for a stronger brand.
I disagree with the sentiment expressed in this article. Knowledge-sharing is not some sort of altruist activity. You cannot sweepingly begrudge people who write articles and share across to spread a point of view, build brand(s), or sell a product. As long as they are not using black patterns, or exploiting their readers, it is not fair to assume malicious intent. Judge UX articles by their content and do not commit the logical fallacy of doubting the messenger.
Also, surprised by the morally higher ground this article takes towards the end by the author. Specially when they publish articles clickbait-y listicles like https://uxdesign.cc/3-placemaking-lessons-from-the-magic-kingdom-4263deb29b2f#.tc3i7lsyp (which isn’t a bad article at all. That goes to show how not to judge the content by its title).
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.