Designer News
Where the design community meets.
↵
Design Fallacies(elischiff.com)
over 8 years ago from Eli Schiff, elischiff.com
Eli Schiff, over 8 years ago (edited over 8 years ago )
I don't claim to know things of this sort. I don't think they're particularly important when we are talking about making judgements about the qualities in an interface.
This is what I take issue with. You don't know what you're talking about yet you're criticizing it anyway. So it's worthless to the designer who needs help and it makes you look like a massive a-hole.
I am critiquing aesthetics and usability. These are visible for anyone to see. The conditions from which the design emerged are a secondary and interesting thing to explore as well. But crucially what matters is how they result for the user.
Did he not change his position?
No he did not.
He absolutely did.
What happened was, a designer reimagined the iOS7 icons on Dribbble and then "offered" it to Apple, not to help a designer make progress (actual design critique) but to show how much "better" they are. If the iOS7 icons were poor, this new design did not help anyone understand why.
I've written about the topic of unsolicited redesigns before. I don't think they're the [evil](www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/2/3/unsolicited-uninformed-redesigns) practice that you seem to believe they are.
to constantly quote a blog post you wrote like some source of Truth is realllllllly lame.
I prefer not to write the same thing repeatedly. I don't think that's a crime.
Mitch Malone, over 8 years ago The conditions from which the design emerged are a secondary and interesting thing to explore as well. But crucially what matters is how they result for the user.
Designers work in a set of constraints: technical, business, organizational, etc. Even design itself can constrain your decisions. In order to provide a meaningful, useful, and actionable critique, you must understand them and work within them. Otherwise the feedback is useless.
Don't take this the wrong way, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but everything you've said makes me think you're a designer just starting your career. When I first started out, I was really idealistic about UX. Literally, nothing else mattered expect the user experience. But if you ever work for a technology company or a shop with an existing product, you'll start to understand how difficult it is to be an idealistic designer. You'll start to really understand these constraints and ultimately appreciate them. They help you focus on the user and what they really, truly need to make progress.
I've written about the topic of unsolicited redesigns before. I don't think they're the evil practice that you seem to believe they are
I don't think I ever said that. I'm talking about critiques and I'm starting to see that you and I have really different definitions. I've roughly defined what a design critique is in my mind: A meeting where a designer presents work and context to other designers in order to make progress on the piece of work. I'd love to hear you're definition. And as a follow up, how can an unsolicited redesign work as a critique?
Designers work in a set of constraints: technical, business, organizational, etc. Even design itself can constrain your decisions. In order to provide a meaningful, useful, and actionable critique, you must understand them and work within them. Otherwise the feedback is useless.
I believe the suggestions I make in my critiques are well within the range of possible choices a practicing design team could make. Especially when it comes to judgements of communicative value. Eg. explaining that a button with shading and a border is more evocative than a textual button does not require me to know any organizational constraints outside of potentially having an understanding of why they may have gone in one direction as a part of my analysis.
I'd love to hear you're definition.
Your understanding of critique is certainly different from mine. Mine of course includes your formal academic style critique, but it is also much more. Critique for me is evaluation, discernment, judgement and analysis. I'm not an expert on film, literary or architectural criticism, but from my limited understanding no one expects those forms of critics to know all constraints of those they critique. Nor are those critics required to sit in a room in which they are presented with work and context in order to "make progress." They simply evaluate according to their stated criteria for judgement.
Mitch Malone, over 8 years ago explaining that a button with shading and a border is more evocative than a textual button does not require me to know any organizational constraints
This is probably true. This would probably not be a worthwhile design critique either, in my opinion. The answer is boring. A style guide can easily answer this kind of debate. Critiques for me are more about systems, workflows, behaviors, than visual treatments.
Nor are those critics required to sit in a room in which they are presented with work and context in order to "make progress."
This is really clarifying. You're talking about art. In that world, art can exist for art's sake (l'art pour l'art) and doesn't require the constraints of the artist. But what I do, what I imagine most people on DN do, is not art. I make systems. I create interfaces. I solve problems. I help customers make progress with their work. In order to understand a system, you have to understand the constraints. Art can exist in a vacuum; design can not.
So you've validated something that I've been thinking for a while. There needs to be a new word for the work that I do. The work that visual designers, like yourself, do is good and important but it's really different from what I do. We speak the same words but not the same language. Our words mean different things and it makes for messing conversations like this one. You have a role in an organization but it's probably not on my team. We don't make art.
The answer is boring. A style guide can easily answer this kind of debate. Critiques for me are more about systems, workflows, behaviors, than visual treatments.
You practice critiques about systems, workflows and behavior. Thus critiques could never be done about visual treatments...
So you've validated something that I've been thinking for a while. There needs to be a new word for the work that I do. The work that visual designers, like yourself, do is good and important but it's really different from what I do.
You're hardly the first to try to distance yourself and design from lowly "art". Did you know that design was originally called a "useful art"? But of course we're all too logical today to admit such a thing to ourselves. Art is too subjective and irrational. If you believe such things you have an incredibly limited view of art.
Benjamin Kowalski, over 8 years ago (edited over 8 years ago )
I agree with all of the points you've made throughout this conversation Eli. You two are in fact talking in different manners about what criticism is and I would definitely prefer reading your criticism and actual thoughts on major topics in design rather than read inhouse design critique conversations like mentioned above. There is a difference between critiquing 'w'ork for completely practical reasons, and providing a critical spotlight on a product of all of that practical design thought.
Vignelli said graphic design would never truly be a canon worthy of respect until it garnered real criticism from within it's walls and from outside. I think this is the type of writing and criticism that he was imagining for graphic design, however aimed at our still young digital/product/interface design world.
Also relevant to the discussion about art and design (as one entity in my opinion)
For what it's worth I appreciate the links to some of the more theoretical and philosophical references within the writing. This is in tune with actual academic writing acting as footnotes.
Vignelli said graphic design would never truly be a canon worthy of respect until it garnered real criticism from within it's walls and from outside. I think this is the type of writing and criticism that he was imagining for graphic design, however aimed at our still young digital/product/interface design world.
Absolutely!
Shahn raises an interesting point. I'm not too familiar with his work, but as far as Kandinsky's modernism the quote isn't too surprising. My disagreement with the quote is its bias towards trusting the avant garde. The avant garde is littered with trash that only resonates with those seeking to be part of an exclusive group of contrarians who want to appear 'in the know.' It is a mistake to trust the faux-progressivism of avant gardism simply because it it is new. There's no guarantee that it will later resonate with the masses, only that if imposed for long enough they will begin to merely tolerate it.
I'm sure that Shahn had a lot of great things to say other than that, I just don't happen to agree with him on that point.
For what it's worth I appreciate the links to some of the more theoretical and philosophical references within the writing. This is in tune with actual academic writing acting as footnotes.
I'm glad they're useful :)
My interpretation of that quote is more like every layer of the pyramid is a sieve that certain elements of the avant garde pass through towards a wider acceptance. Not all of the "trash" as you call it will make it through this cultural screening and in to the next level of normal, but of much of these incredibly large, progressive view points emerge from the art world first.
I think a lot of what I call "trash" does pass through which is rather unfortunate. The art world is driven by the art market, which cares not for excellence, but for what is known as artspeak. Artspeak is what justifies high prices, which is what gets media attention, which is what gets artists into textbooks. So even the stuff that passes the test of time is subject to question.
This elitism has always been true to an extent in the art world even prior to modernist art. Art patrons imposed their taste on the masses. Yet there is something viscerally compelling to even the layman about the aesthetic sophistication and expressiveness of eg. romanticist art. You don't need to be taught to enjoy it like you do with most of modernist and postmodernist art.
much of these incredibly large, progressive view points emerge from the art world first.
Perhaps you can clarify this, it sounds interesting.
This is what I take issue with. You don't know what you're talking about yet you're criticizing it anyway. So it's worthless to the designer who needs help and it makes you look like a massive a-hole.
No he did not. "Throw[ing] another designer under the bus," doesn't equal "design critique". The expression at hand is about abandoning someone for self-gain. What happened was, a designer reimagined the iOS7 icons on Dribbble and then "offered" it to Apple, not to help a designer make progress (actual design critique) but to show how much "better" they are. If the iOS7 icons were poor, this new design did not help anyone understand why.
Om's original tweet is constructive feedback. He's posing a question, trying to get clarity, which lead to thoughtful critique. Then someone just stuck in a Dribbble shot like "I did it! All done!" Like, no dude. Get in the conversation first.
Ok, I was getting at your victimization. You are not oppressed. You can question things.
PS to constantly quote a blog post you wrote like some source of Truth is realllllllly lame.