Searching for books for example, requires a large amount of indexing,categorization and sifting through data
Is the user's activity sifting through data? no. That is the capital-S System's overhead. The arguement here is between whether the true functions of a system are user-centric or programmer-centric.
Design is not supposed to expose the seedy underbelly of your code. The purpose of your code is to accomplish a task based on user input. The task you are trying to accomplish, is what is important, not the way your code, or your filesystem, or your GUI is structured. What I am saying is that this underlying user task is what interactive design should make clear.
Programming languages are paintbrushes the same as Photoshop is. My photoshop work shouldn't explain to the viewer how it was created in PS, but it should intrinsically explain to the viewer how to buy a book.
A pamflet has a texture, fold and other attributes which can be accentuated and used to assist in the actions to take on the paper.
The issue at hand is not the differentiation of print designers and web designers... its of web designers and codemonkeys. It should be assumed that web designers are comfortable with the medium.
The best UI is one where you don't know what's going on on the inside!
no way. Theres a difference between how something is structured based on the development technology (OOP, whatever), and the basic activity the user is attempting to accomplish. When I'm surfing Amazon, I'm looking for a book. A good design is one that can easily show me where the books are, while explaining to me, intuitively, where everything else is, should I want to digress. It is true that the driver of an automobile should not have to fire the sparkplugs on the combustion chambers. However, the function of the car is to drive, and the interface of the car should explain that to the user.
thats okay, programmers that have accepted freelance they are incapable of delivering on isn't crucial to my business.
I think the context of these projects is important. At what point does work require a "professional?" A project that deals with dynamic data typically will be the job of a trained programmer. However, anything that requires with qualitatively strong user experience will require a designer. Who is who is not important, it comes down to experience in delivering a product, which in the case of this discussion, is some form of interactive system.
seperating UI design and graphic design is silly. Shall we seperate web design as well? It all comes down to the product, and how a user reacts based on visual stimuli. Making something "beautiful" is not pour l'art, it's to maintain a level of visual consistency, which should ultimately communicate the inner functionality of a system, either specifically (making a button look like a button) or broadly (putting certain types of data together to contextualize it and grouping similar functions).
Its all I can do to stop from flaming at the sight of this post. I see design as a very democratic medium, but looking for shortcuts to something that is extremely complex and people have been devoting their entire lives to for hundreds of years seems a tad presumptuous. Call me elitist, but I am not eager to share my knowledge for someone who sees what I do as unnecessary and unprofessional. Lie in it.
I did say I was democratic right? So look at/., does it look "professional"? Stop trying to look professional because you aren't a professional. If you are truly devoted to the craft then get off of slashdot and into a classroom, or to a library. Graphic design isn't something you can fake, sorry. You need either talent or experience... a pirated version of Photoshop means bupkus.
Dont mean to flame, but I feel the burning desire to point out some flaws in your charred logic.
Child windows are not inherently more intuitive. MS utilizes a application-oriented interface paradigm which is a whole different ballgame. You claim the paradigm is 'inferior' when 'attempting to multitask' yet you don't even provide anecdotal evidence to support what you're saying. Application switching can be performed with or without the dock, and the inclusion of Exposé leverages OS X's extremely intuitive document-oriented system. System preferences allows you to tone down or remove the 'endless eye candy' and the 'nix terminal as well as X11 allow you to change your interface as much as you like.
OS X 'aint for everybody. If you're content with Windows, stay cool. I was, and did, for 12 years. Besides, where would you get your 3d progz without Kazaa?
Slashdot Mirror
we designers can be so snooty sometimes ;)
did you see that girl who locked the door with the 3d UI. l3333333333t.
Is the user's activity sifting through data? no. That is the capital-S System's overhead. The arguement here is between whether the true functions of a system are user-centric or programmer-centric.
Design is not supposed to expose the seedy underbelly of your code. The purpose of your code is to accomplish a task based on user input. The task you are trying to accomplish, is what is important, not the way your code, or your filesystem, or your GUI is structured. What I am saying is that this underlying user task is what interactive design should make clear.
Programming languages are paintbrushes the same as Photoshop is. My photoshop work shouldn't explain to the viewer how it was created in PS, but it should intrinsically explain to the viewer how to buy a book.
I'm all about Processing (http://www.processing.org/) these days. Not the same at all, but arguably neater.
The issue at hand is not the differentiation of print designers and web designers... its of web designers and codemonkeys. It should be assumed that web designers are comfortable with the medium.
The best UI is one where you don't know what's going on on the inside!
no way. Theres a difference between how something is structured based on the development technology (OOP, whatever), and the basic activity the user is attempting to accomplish. When I'm surfing Amazon, I'm looking for a book. A good design is one that can easily show me where the books are, while explaining to me, intuitively, where everything else is, should I want to digress. It is true that the driver of an automobile should not have to fire the sparkplugs on the combustion chambers. However, the function of the car is to drive, and the interface of the car should explain that to the user.
ok? ok.
I think the context of these projects is important. At what point does work require a "professional?" A project that deals with dynamic data typically will be the job of a trained programmer. However, anything that requires with qualitatively strong user experience will require a designer. Who is who is not important, it comes down to experience in delivering a product, which in the case of this discussion, is some form of interactive system.
seperating UI design and graphic design is silly. Shall we seperate web design as well? It all comes down to the product, and how a user reacts based on visual stimuli. Making something "beautiful" is not pour l'art, it's to maintain a level of visual consistency, which should ultimately communicate the inner functionality of a system, either specifically (making a button look like a button) or broadly (putting certain types of data together to contextualize it and grouping similar functions).
ok? ok.
Its all I can do to stop from flaming at the sight of this post. I see design as a very democratic medium, but looking for shortcuts to something that is extremely complex and people have been devoting their entire lives to for hundreds of years seems a tad presumptuous. Call me elitist, but I am not eager to share my knowledge for someone who sees what I do as unnecessary and unprofessional. Lie in it. I did say I was democratic right? So look at /., does it look "professional"? Stop trying to look professional because you aren't a professional. If you are truly devoted to the craft then get off of slashdot and into a classroom, or to a library. Graphic design isn't something you can fake, sorry. You need either talent or experience... a pirated version of Photoshop means bupkus.
holding down Ctrl is a right-click
Child windows are not inherently more intuitive. MS utilizes a application-oriented interface paradigm which is a whole different ballgame. You claim the paradigm is 'inferior' when 'attempting to multitask' yet you don't even provide anecdotal evidence to support what you're saying. Application switching can be performed with or without the dock, and the inclusion of Exposé leverages OS X's extremely intuitive document-oriented system. System preferences allows you to tone down or remove the 'endless eye candy' and the 'nix terminal as well as X11 allow you to change your interface as much as you like.
OS X 'aint for everybody. If you're content with Windows, stay cool. I was, and did, for 12 years. Besides, where would you get your 3d progz without Kazaa?
Is it hot in here, or is it just my post?