Where the design community meets.
firstname.lastname@example.org Joined over 4 years ago
Thanks for the reply, Jon! Would love to hear why you think I'm bad at taking criticism! I might be wrong about this; I was under the impression I was providing some context through my replies. My intention was always to understand better what the issue is.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it. You are right; I dropped the ball on the way I presented my projects. I went with an "almost-kinda-good-enough" version. I've started working on a more story-driven approach.
Since this is Designer News, I shared design-related challenges; this isn't a sales pitch. If you want, I can share more business/philosophical problems, but I don't think its the right place for them.
Taking into account the fact that mobile usage is on an upward trend every year (~62% in 2018).Making an excellent first impression on the prevalent medium was a personal goal. Why do you think this is not an issue? Sometimes as designers we tend to forget not everyone is using a 27" 5k screen to view our works, and based on my site analytics the traffic is slowly shifting towards mobile.
Figma doesn't support IE, Webflow doesn't support mobile or Firefox. Do you consider those lousy decisions and automatically decide those tools cannot solve your problems? How is my choice of not supporting one viewport+orientation any different than a developers decision of not supporting a browser? It was never an issue of "making the design work.", instead, I asked whether I should invest my resources into something that will offer a sub-par experience based on my standards.
You seem to hold a lot of passion for this, and I appreciate your honest and from the heart feedback. I might be wrong about this, but did you made some mental comparison with some other websites you might have seen when providing the feedback? Id love to look at some examples you consider a "strong portfolio."
Hey Ken, thanks for taking the time to reply. No, the images are not ironic. I'm deliberately positioning myself as an actual human being, and consultant, rather than a collection of pixels from projects + an about page.
I wholeheartedly believe this approach helps overcome the "screwdriver-syndrome," where if you sell yourself as a freelance-designer sometimes you will be treated as a pixel-screwdriver, and your opinions are irrelevant.
Yes, you are correct, on my 28" (2k) monitor the images are exaggerated in size. I chose to optimize it for mobile/tablet/laptop and barely make it work on large desktop screens. Based on the upward trend of mobile usage (~62% in 2018) and the dominance of social media link sharing I believe this is a good move.
As Gabriel pointed out, using a normal mouse doesn't work in the concept page (I'm using the Logi MX Anywhere 2). I actually looked for navigation arrows (I think you had them in the previous version) and then pressed the arrows on my keyboard only to find a super slow and jaggy animation.
I guess this section is very important to you since you showcased as a main navigation item.
The next suggestions were given to me by an HR manager :
Overall try and make it more human, you're basically selling yourself not your skills. In this day and age skills are a dime a dozen (just visit freelancer.com or upwork). If you want to take a look, here is my resume
Thanks for the reply Erkan! Guess i wont hold my breath for the beta and keep an eye for a release date..whenever that might be.
Same here. On 5jul I was "no.5391" on the waiting list. I'm curious as to how many people get the beta invite in those batches. If they keep this campaign up for much longer it's going to be a disappointment when everyone gets to test it and it doesn't live up to the huge hype.
Over ~8000lines of code for a 10s animation. If I want to make a 2 min promo video using pure CSS, that would be ~96.000lines of code! With an average code writing speed of 500lines per day, it would take me 192days to make a 2min pure CSS animation. Repeat that out loud...192DAYS, ~96.000lines of code ...for a 2min animation of pure CSS. There's your progress right there...
Just to clarify, here's my breakdown:
Visceral Design 10/10 - Work of art! Congratulation to the patience and mastery of the author.
Reflective Design Over 8000/10 - It makes an awesome story to discuss with friends!
Behavioral Design -20/10 - Unusable in real life situations.
All the points you made are great and valid points. However, from a behavioral design, this approach is completely unusable.
It's like this guy that makes amazing paintings in Excel. I can appreciate the effort he put into making them. I can appreciate the mastery an patience he has. But you don't see designers flock to Excel to make UI design anytime soon.
As others pointed out, this is art and not necessarily progress in the field of web animation.
Ian, thank you very much for taking the time to give such a well thought out response, really appreciate it. Yes, you are correct, trying to defend Flash by today's standards is a lost battle.
One of the problems with something like Flash is you get all the stuff loaded into the player that you talked about. You can't choose to not load everything. Do you need native desktop integration on a website? Unlikely. For the other things you mentioned, the browser actually has access to most of them.
Yes-ish. At that time Flash had most of the "cool" stuff modern browsers have. If you look at the file size of Chrome 4 (from 2009) it was 11mb. Firefox 18 (from 2013) was 19mb. If you add 20mb for the flash plugin for all those instructions (ex: video/audio playback, or live streaming), you end up with something that resembles today's browsers like Chrome 68 which is 49mb. (i might be mistaken about this tho)
TL;DR - All the things you mentioned like SEO, accessibility, screen readers, are correct. Flash was terrible at them and many other things. What I'm trying to convey is that Flash has been around for more than 20years. It paved the way for numerous platforms we take for granted today. Labeling it all bad would be a terrible thing to all those features it paved the way for.
Liam, if you have the time, do tell me those reasons I've chosen to ignore. I've already mentioned security, bloatware and Adobes poor management. What exactly was so important that I forgot to mention?
As a designer, I look at the Flash platform from that perspective :
flash had "liquid" layouts before "liquid" layouts were a thing by having the Stage component implemented in Flash 6 (2002). Ex: stage.height - Property (read-only); indicates the current height, in pixels, of the Stage. The vh and vw were introduced in 2016 with CSS Values and Units Module Level 3
custom embedded fonts when everyone was still using images (~flash 8 -2005). @Font-face made a comeback in 2008 and Google fonts were introduced in 2010
The biggest thing from my designer perspective was: UNIFORM rendering across all devices and browsers (as long as they had the plugin). You could design and write the code inside ONE application and it would look the same on all devices and browsers. No more font rendering inconsistencies, browser-specific values and instructions, it just looked good. This same principle was implemented by Unity in its game engine and since then it's become one of the largest game engines in the world.
As a designer yourself, if you can look at those things and say they are terrible (especially no3) ideas that had to die I'll respect that.
Yes, the good ol'argument against how large and locked down the flash player was.
Those 20mb would give you access to custom fonts, vector graphics, bitmap graphics, video, audio, camera, microphone, file system integration, native extensions, native desktop integration, and hardware integration with connected devices, that rendered exactly the same on any device running that 20mb.
Was flash player bloated? - YES. Was it poorly optimized? - YUP. Was Adobe shortsighted for not opening it up? - YES.
Was Flash a bad platform? Hell no!
Then, as a developer, you must maintain either thousands of dollars worth of software, or you must pay into a subscription model in order to even begin to think about developing animations.
...wait, isn't that the same business model Apple has? $99 developer subscription - check. $2000+ mac products to run their PROPRIETARY APPLE software? - Check. The same Apple that said Flash was the devil and then replaced it with its own locked-down proprietary alternative (app store/native sdk/xcode/etc)?
Honestly, what's missing here are better tools in order to animate with HTML and CSS
It's been 10 years since Apple boldly told the world that Flash sucks...and you still think "Html animation just needs 1 killer app! And the whole world will see it's greatness!". TEN years! How many alternatives to Photoshop we got in that time? Sketch, Figma, Affinity Photo, GIMP, Pixelmator Pro, Framer X to name a few. Maybe it's time to realize we've thrown out the baby with the bath water, and start from scratch.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.