Where the design community meets.
Brooklyn, NY Founder & Designer @ Density Joined almost 7 years ago Robert has invited Kyle O'Hara
Always been a big fan of https://fuzzco.com/
Digging the experiment here. In looking at the results, some of the outcomes seem pretty close to a coin toss. I'd be really curious about the designs in which one was mostly preferred and maybe run additional tests (maybe changing the order in which they're presented) to see if the results are repeatable because the differences do seem quite subtle.
My singular experience in using grids has lead me to the following conclusions:
Using a grid allows me, as a designer, to justify the precise spacing of my design elements, and develop consistency across multiple designs—especially when working with multiple people. Intentionality around spacing allows me to control a gaze and productively constrain my decision making.
As a developer, it allows me to set constant spacing variables, rely on those across the entirety of an application, and make on-the-fly spacing decisions in code where a static design fails to accommodate for an edge case.
My absolute hope is that, passive consumers, at the very least unconsciously feel that there's an underlying logic to the design—even where there's no evidence of a grid in its final form—and that my use of a grid to establish a consistent and functional visual hierarchy has resulted in a better experience for them.
But my experience suggests that using a grid system exclusively doesn't always result in a more visually appealing or performant outcome. I've seen way too many designs following no grid structure or design system out perform those that do in both respects. I'd love for science to confirm otherwise—it would make me very happy indeed.
In client work, commissioned designs, or user feedback, if someone asks you to you do something that you don't really want to do, or forces you to do something you don't agree with, own it by making it the best version of that thing the world's ever seen—unless it's morally compromising, of course.
I forget where I got this from, but it's helped me through so many projects and ultimately made me a better designer. It's in keeping with the "design is for other people" mentality.
I think this is one of the biggest faults I see in designers, and common misconceptions of design. That somehow a design must be the designer's imprint on the world. While developing an aesthetic is certainly a thing, as designers, I think our job is to present our interpretation of the world's ideas.
I think the whole "people don't know what they need until you give it to them" has propagated this myth that designers are supposed to give people things they didn't know they wanted. When in reality, people know what they want, they just don't have the tools to articulate it, or don't understand what's possible.
Why do you think DN died? I feel like Dribbble suffered a similar fate. People use the platform, but finding interesting topics or receiving good feedback within the community has always been elusive. I wonder this all the time. fwiw, I'm still here—not sure what that says about me, though.
The title, click bait or not, made me click. The video was fun and informational. I think people unaware of the thought that goes into a designing logos would learn something. Thanks for sharing, man
Really well done, and hilarious. Nice work, potato.
Amazing, after 2 minutes I tried to do this as well—thought I was special
I like this new design. A few unsolicited critiques:
As compared to the previous design, the information explains the bank's services better and might better accommodate people who aren't familiar with Simple.
Ok, back to work.
New site and product design for Density. Build something, anything, with an API for movement. Would love some feedback on the site!
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.