Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjevans | Hacker News Reader

That thing is supposed to be a logo?

I'm reminded of CGP Gray's videos about flags. https://www.youtube.com/user/cgpgrey/videos Like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4w6808wJcU About US state flags

View on HN

I've done branding and identity design in the past, and got university training to do it. I've also worked as a developer and contributed a ton to FOSS projects. That an engineering organization thinks this is a product logo is entirely unsurprising. I'll bet their interfaces are really something.

The most frustrating thing about being a designer in those environments is the dunning-krueger cockiness many technical people have in their understanding of design, which they usually believe is purely an aesthetic consideration.*

It's not even like a junior developer trying to 'correct' a senior developer about coding practices in a dev meeting— the better analog is a designer that watched a half hour Coding for Designers talk at a conference trying to correct a senior developer about coding practices in a stand-up, because they'd never have been invited to the dev meeting to begin with. If there were only designers in that meeting— and they likely find the other designer more credible because they jibe with their perspective, don't realize how important the developers input is, and might have watched that same conference talk— that could damage a project. In my experience, designers are way more likely to be solo in meetings with developers and the echo chamber of developer 'expertise' on design drowns out actual professional design expertise. In most FOSS projects, is bleaker than that because designers don't even bother trying.

* though completely out-of-context "rules" born from Tufte quotes aren't uncommon. In art school, we were told that we need to understand the rules in order to know when to break them. Imagine someone who'd never driven before that memorized a few pages of the driving manual calling you an unqualified driver because your actions didn't comply with the letter of one page they memorized even if it was qualified by another, or required for safety.

I've never understood this use of the phrase 'senior developer' like it's evidence of being masterful at coding. In my experience half the juniors and half the seniors were good and the other half were bad. Tenure gets you a bit of perspective but it didn't turn bad programmers into good ones...

I don't think it's meaningless even if it's not completely codified. I use the term senior as a way to distinguish someone that's competent enough and knowledgeable enough about the environment to direct technical initiatives like architectural decisions that will be acted upon by other developers, and be a consistent go-to resource for others for questions either about the environment or coding. When I you l was a chef, it was a little more cut-and-dried because the organization required more of a hierarchy, but there was still the same dichotomy. Lots of young talent could mop the floor with the older cooks — but it was a combination of knowing the environment— eg cuisine, equipment, processes, etc— and knowing how to cook. It wasn't at all unheard of to have a young cook make sous chef over older cooks, effectively becoming the senior, even if they were still asking the older cooks questions about how specific things get done around there.

I agree that it _should_ imply expertise, but it doesn't in practice. It bugs me because start using it as a status thing: "how to think like a senior developer", "listen to me because I'm a senior deveveloper". The title hasn't earned its credentials and it keeps getting used to fake credentials. Instead we should talk about good developers vs. bad ones.

Heck, I know someone who got the title of "senior" on their first job out of a bootcamp. They were credible in the sense that they had worked at other companies before and had a grown-up and dependable demeanor. But they weren't someone I would want to take coding advice from.

I've been lucky in that anywhere I've worked, titles like that came with additional technical responsibilities and were awarded by technical managers who actually had a stake in whether or not people were qualified for them. The youngest company I've worked for started in the early 90s, though, so I've weirdly avoided a lot of the practices born from startup culture over the past couple of decades, and haven't had the chance to get burned by (many of) them. Sort of parallel to your criticism is the "what do I call myself on LinkedIn before I've had any actual job titles" thing, which I really don't care about. I've had a bunch of job titles over the years and I've gotten 'less' descriptive in my 'business card' level title for those sorts of uses— I think it's all up to whoever is doing the hiring to cut through the chaffe, and anything on LinkedIn should be considered marketing fluff anyway. Maybe it's different with ATS job applications and HR people?

a product logo, according to the title, although that may be a hint of editorialising from the author.

It really is, it’s just much more graphically detailed than the usual product logo, probably because it was designed by nuclear weapon designers and not by professional graphic designers.

It probably goes against everything they teach in design school, but I find it charming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com