devilshaircut

I can't speak for all designers, but when I design webpages, I do start with words. Typography and content serve as most the fundamental concerns when working toward a usable, visually stunning design.

If the thesis of this editorial is "add only which serves to aid in achieving the spec/goal", I agree. But there is an implicit danger here as well of underestimating the total needs of the resource's end user.

I agree with this. 80% I think is a bit of an overestimate. Especially since the design discipline is so multi-pronged.

I agree with the earlier poster also that talent can also play a role. However that is somewhat rare and even in that case requires experience to truly master.

As noted in a different reply to you, here is something indicative of something I worked on recently: http://imgur.com/GPYmt3T

If you'd like to see my portfolio, please PM me your email and I will reply to you privately with it. I generally do not share it except upon request.

Since I was asked for my credentials, I believe this should suffice: http://imgur.com/GPYmt3T

Just for the record, I work for startups, not large companies; it just happened that the startup I was at doing design work for was acquired by Oracle.

EDIT: Clarification.

I think you made the point beautifully when you said "can get the basics down in a few weeks to a month". The key word here is "basics". A professional level of skill goes beyond basics. As a web designer, one can get the basics down of CSS, for example in just a day's workshop at a conference. That said, to be of any real value as a professional, you really need more insight than what a basic understanding gives you.

As for your comment about wanting back-end people refusing to do front-end work - actually, I myself do not have a problem with this. I believe people should do what motivates them at work and not get strong armed into doing things that fall outside of their professional interests. There is a limit to this of course, but in this case, there are definitely front-end people who will do the job better and take it as their career passion.

I definitely respect you and your self-starting attitude. It's definitely true that school is expensive and impractical for some people's life's situation. The only thing I take issue with is that the experience can be compensated for in a period of 1-6 months.

As you indicate correctly, there are other ways to become a designer outside of design school. In either case, however, it takes a lifetime of dedication and hard work. Reading a few books and designing a few websites is a good first step but it does not a designer make.

I didn't mean this as an ad hominem and I am delighted that she is open to criticism. My comment is strictly about the level of design represented here, which I believe is not professional quality.

I hope this doesn't sound pedantic but we aren't talking about a basic competency lesson here; the article seems to purport that one can become a professional this way.

I hope this doesn't sound snarky - it isn't intended to - but the site in question looks worse than a WordPress template, design-school-freshman-quality stuff. I don't mean to be mean-spirited - this is just simply my impression of the design level.

Yes. Those studies are one-sided. It is as I indicated in another post a point of contention among the professional cycling community whether or not helmets do more harm than good (both in accidents and sociologically). Here is a study that was very much talked about in recent years.

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

A Google search will reveal other similar studies as well. Wikipedia is not comprehensive.

I am not going to go digging for this information for you but essentially the way bike helmets are tested is a weight is dropped onto the helmet traveling at a certain velocity and the result is recorded. It is not representative of the real world and it is only valid for speeds between 11 and 14 mph.

There are no well-supported "facts" that helmets reduce serious head injury. In fact, among the cycling community, it is a very hot point of contention.

I hope this doesn't sound "unnecessarily rude" as an earlier poster characterized negative feedback, but I also found the design for Exec to be incredibly pedestrian. To be honest about my position, I do have a degree in design so I perhaps am biased.

That said though, I think the analysis is a bit glib. "Learn to draw"; "learn graphic design theory"; "learn how to write" - not really sure how this advice possibly can compare with the huge amount of lessons you accumulate from practicing design in college. The suggestion that reading "The Design of Everyday Things" is a significant step to becoming a practicing designer is overly simplistic. I would never presume that, for example, "Gardner's Art Through the Ages" makes you into a museum curator.

The idea that someone could become a designer in 6 months reminds me of things like get rich quick schemes, get ripped in 10 minutes a week videos, or as was cited in the article, "You Can Draw in 30 Days". It reminds me of this comic:

http://mccreavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/owl.jpg

You can't draw in 30 days. It is said that professional cyclists don't reach their peak for 10 years. This is also the nature of design.

EDIT: Found a better link for the image I was referring to.

Of course it is a non-starter. I agree, and I would never wear a motorcycle helmet on my bike. I don't even wear a helmet. My point is simply that the degree of protection a bicycle helmet offers is oversold.

There is nothing preventing a cyclist from wearing motorcycle gear on a bike. I would never do it though because it isn't practical. But this is precisely the point I am getting at and in fact I do not wear a helmet at all.

As for saying "you might as well ride a motorcycle or a scooter" - you're missing the point entirely. As a cyclist, I don't ride for any other reason than I prefer it.

If you want to say that a car is slower, I would beg to differ. In normal commuting traffic, I blow past the parking lot that urban streets effectively become at rush hour.

I don't know if you ride bikes or not. Regardless of this, you should know that bike helmets are safety rated for low-speed crashes only. An example of this collision is a stationary object - e.g. the ground - impacting a moving object - e.g. your head - at a speed of 11-14 miles per hour.

This is what I term "a small subset of crashes".

Realistically, cyclists ride faster than this. And realistically, the types of collisions you want to protect against are not between you and the ground but rather you and a moving object, such as a car. Bike helmets are not rated for these kinds of crashes.

I would not use the Hovding either. The reason I presented it is because it represents a radically redesigned bike helmet.

Anyhow, as I said before, the only thing you can wear to really prevent bad bike accidents is a motorcycle helmet, which are in fact rated for high speed collisions.

If you want protection from injury on your bicycle, you are better off with a motorcycle helmet than a bicycle helmet, end of story. As has been stated by previous posters, bike helmets are largely ineffective. Bike helmets solve the cyclist protection problem for a small subset of crashes.

The only real innovation I've seen in bike helmets lately is this:

http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works?/en/how

Without this kind of total reimagining of bike protection, I doubt it is possible to innovate on what is currently classified as a helmet for cyclists.

EDIT: Link already posted by a previous poster, of course.

So the story is not good enough because it doesn't involve prison and violence? So she should just keep her story to herself because it isn't as action-packed?

I can't say how much I disagree with this. People should share their stories, even if they are totally mundane. I also feel like you totally disregarded the content of her Q&A which gave many people the opportunity to get insight on the conditions inside of North Korea's closed society.

I don't understand either of the prior two comments. The article clearly wasn't written to garner sympathy, rather, to retell a personal experience that is likely foreign to most people, given the cloistered nature of North Korean society.

As though only the most tragic stories possible are worth telling? Please.

"they never evolved to possess the same enzyme"

... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).

This is the exact question that I was prepared to ask; eager to hear a response.

I hope you are referring to the men and not Ms. Richards. Because her "little mistake" resulted in the firing of a decent human being with a wife and 3 kids.

True, I do agree with you that the order of events seemed a bit tactless.

I think you are overlooking the fact (clearly elucidated by SendGrid) that her position as Developer Evangelist makes her the face of their company at conferences. Reaching out to her hundreds of Twitter followers to bring public shame to decent people runs perpendicular to the ethics of her company, her position, and (I hope) to the tech industry.

It is truly "ironic" - a word I shall borrow from you - that you attack SendGrid on the grounds of Free Speech, when in fact, the men in question in the incident were having a private conversation themselves.

I applaud SendGrid's response to this debacle. It is carefully weighed and expresses the precise reason why action absolutely needed to be taken. It is worthy of praise that they are willing to step into a very controversial issue and do what is best for their employees despite the potential fallout.

I encourage anyone who was considering not using SendGrid's services in light of recent events to reconsider, given their reasoned, rational response to a difficult situation.

I didn't mean to indicate that I had a problem with her reporting conduct that is in violation of an event's attendance agreement. What I intended to express is precisely the other part of what you said - that the joke was not sexual, but anatomical in nature, and did not target her in as a female (Read the blog post if you haven't already - it clearly illustrates her position on the matter.). This is what I take issue with. That in framing it as an instance of gender discrimination or sexual harassment is a dilution of those terms that is damaging to these problems which absolutely do exist in the modern workplace.

I agree with you that it is at worst an anatomical joke that is not funny and hasn't the slightest sexual undertone to it.

I absolutely agree with you that this is potentially the greatest travesty and that the whole thing is a debacle.

I reposted this story on my Facebook and literally the only people who commented on it were my female friends/colleagues in the technology industry. Needless to say their reaction was a collective groan.

It is so unfortunate because - as we agree - sexism is such a huge problem that we are certainly not exempt from. And situations like this dilute the real struggles women face in a male-dominated industry.

I in fact agree with you and think you are 100% right but I think you are parsing the situation incorrectly. In fact it seems to be Ms. Richards who will cause women to be reluctant to report real sexual harassment.

Let me draw from a past experience of mine involving a female colleague who was sexually harassed. She related the situation to me and I had absolutely no doubt that what was said to her was inappropriate and needed to be reported to HR. I in fact encouraged her to bring the issue to HR. She told me she was highly reluctant to say anything because she was afraid it would affect the perception of her in the office.

This is a real and legitimate concern for women in the workplace today.

But the fact is, the person she, and women like her, do not want to be seen as is Ms. Richards. My female colleague had experienced a real threat in her workplace that was truly hostile. Ms. Richards demeans very real threats to gender equality in the workplace by using a penis joke told in a private conversation to deal real, public damage senselessly. I am greatly concerned for my female colleagues who are lumped into the same "team" as Ms. Richards, particularly in the inevitable case that they do experience truly awful sexual harassment or threat.

It should be clear from the reaction here on HN that your comments were widely regarded as heteronormative at best.

I think in fact that people understood you were trying to "invoke a feeling of sexual threat" and that you did this by making blatantly homophobic remarks.

I also think you should realize that even if it was not your intent to analogize, there is still an inherent comparison being made between the two situations. If they are not at all comparable, then Adria Richards must be examined according to the circumstances outlined in this thread. It appears to be the consensus among both male and female posters (including yourself) that it is unlikely that the situation could have made her feel sexually threatened. That being the case, you are simply defending the fact that she could have. This is irrelevant. Is it fair for me to feel threatened by you because you made a homophobic remark which, unlike the comments made in the presence of Ms. Richards, was actually perceived by the community to be reprehensible? Frankly, no - and I think it is a failure on your part to evaluate her situation critically rather than defending people's ability to be offended by anything they deem offensive.

EDIT: Typo.

I understand why you, as a woman, would hate the phrase "women in tech". It definitely has a subtext that indicates being a woman in tech is somehow a unique situation - when in reality it should be the standard. Many of my female peers also feel the same way - that they don't want to be talked about in a specific lingo - and simply want to be recognized on their personal merits, which may or may not include overcoming gender inequality. It is absolutely true that the tech industry and American industry at large are sexist and discriminatory. It is also absolutely true that cases of poor judgement like this work against this real problem of sexism in the workplace.

"I'm not going to debate what is work appropriate."

As pointed out by a previous poster, I would appreciate it you took the time to understand that this was not the crux of what I was saying. Work appropriateness aside, the idea that only juveniles could possibly enjoy such a joke is ... laughable.