Be nice. Or else.
UX Designer Joined 9 months ago
Miles hasn't posted any stories yet.
Probably about 99% of the time breaking terms of service agreements is in no way a crime. It's grounds to get blacklisted or penalized by the company when it comes to using their products or services in the future, but it's absolutely not a crime.
In this case what kind of computer you're booting a MacOS VM on is completely immaterial to the law.
Nothing illegal about it, but it is against the EULA or TOS or something like that. Of course, that being said, I would think the standard reaction to that would be "Who cares?"
Nope, and I believe that I'm aware of some of the discussions your comment seems to be informed from. I remain confused as to why you're projecting issues from those discussions onto this post. Your problem doesn't seem to be with anything about what Jennifer wrote, but rather experience with others doing the opposite of what Jennifer is advocating.
Sure, but part of solving something is talking about that something.
While I do think that if all we ever did was hand out praise that it could turn into a problem and a stunt for opportunity to grow, but praising something is absolutely not a problem. Receiving positive feedback on a job well done is important.
In contrast, it's not important or useful to merely bash on something. To say "This is gargbage", or "this sucks". That's not useful critique that helps people grow, not to mention needlessly aggressive. We have the understanding and skills required to be thoughtful and helpful in critique, we should use them.
While it's great to be able to avoid emotional reactions from online interactions, that ability is not a reason to be unhelpful, rude, or aggressive when interacting with others.
Where are those terms being applied to a wide range of comments that don't fit the bill? I don't see that happening in Jennifer's writing, so I'm confused as to the presence of that commentary on her post.
Loudly is not the same thing as nastily. Your summary is not what Jennifer actually said in her article. It is in fact a profound misunderstanding of her position. I hope I can help clarify it.
"So the next time you see someone make a ridiculous comment in a forum, call them out. Don’t argue or insult them, just tell them that what they said isn’t acceptable in this community. The next time you see someone belittling someone else’s work instead of giving a constructive critique, call it out. Ask them to elaborate and give examples of how the person could improve."
She's advocating for assertive action that helps maintain strong civil discourse. Not nasty, belittling, or otherwise bullying behavior.
I really love a lot of the visuals, and I think that some of it is a direction that Apple could conceivably take. But that's also where by main critique stems from. There's a trend in Apple's design of dumbing things down to the point where you lose function for power-users and professionals. The redesigned finder, and the Files app in iOS for that matter, look great. But they have exponentially less function and utility than the current Finder app with its multiple viewing options and right click menus.
There's a halfway point between refreshed design and stripped out functionality, and that's what I'd like to see Apple hit more frequently.
Different note, but on the hardware side of things I'd hate to see Apple move the webcam down to the bottom bezel. It might be possible to pull off, but it's an inherently less flattering angle.
There is overlap between minimalism and brutalism. Brutalism showing less concern for comfort and aesthetics. But yeah. I think Yeezy Supply would be better described as a heavily minimalist site than a brutalist one.
In a perfect world you have both. I think that the idea is to focus on the UX rather than the visuals. If you can do both, great. But the point is that people would rather have a somewhat ugly product that they love to use and which solves their problems than one that looks wonderful but isn't nice to use.
Nobody is talking about having a product pushed out that's just wireframes, or that is made to be intentionally ugly. Ugly here is somewhat hyperbolic.
That's a really good question. First off I'd like to preface this with the disclaimer that I'm working as a UX team of one. I do have processes that involve quite a bit of self-critique and require defending design decisions to myself before moving forward in any way. Mileage may vary when applying any of it to an actual team with, you know, other people on it.
Basically, I see the general concept of a design system as needing to be framed as just another part of a designer's toolbox. There are a ton of different research and design techniques that are a part of a good designer's toolbox. Being effective is all about knowing what tool or tools to use at any given time. Which processes to apply to what situations under whatever other circumstances you're facing.
Design Systems are an extension of this same idea. They're another one of our tools and another part of our process. They're about making it easier to maintain consistency and shared assets that make it easier and faster to visualize our designs. They're not really about being an unchanging list of design commandments.
When we design things, there's almost always more to iterate on, more to improve and fine tune. Design systems are again the same in respect to that. They're great at speeding things up and keeping things consistent, but I don't know that they should affect the process of determining new solutions to things all that much.
I see them as fitting in more like this: 1. Determine the best solution to the problem 2. Use your design system as much as possible to reconcile it with your existing product. 3. If your solution requires components not in your design system, does it have any that do the job just as well? 4. If it doesn't, maybe you should design one and make an addition to the system. 5. Have you discovered better ways to do anything that aren't represented by your design system during the above process? Maybe it should be amended accordingly.
You see Google doing this kind of stuff all the time with Material Design, especially because they're so big on A/B testing wildly experimental new things out in the wild (subject for a different day). The idea being though, to primarily focus on designing the best solution rather than adhering to your existing design system. Sometimes that will involve being able to implement nothing but components that already exist in your system, sometimes that will involve tweaking existing ones, or designing new ones entirely.
I probably said all that in many more words than I needed to, but it proved to be pretty fun to verbalize what was previously just a bunch of fairly nebulous ideas floating around my head.
What are you and your team's thoughts on all that?
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.