332 karma · joined January 7, 2013
rrrx3.at.hn
Design Debt is not a new concept. It is a common cause of product failure. Taken from the link above:
"'Design debt' explains the problem. When a team is working under pressure, they take shortcuts that compromise design quality. It's like taking out a high-interest loan. The team gets a short-term boost in speed, but from that point forward, changes are more expensive: they're paying interest on the loan. The only way to stop paying interest is to pay back the loan's principle and fix the design shortcuts."
People in Marketing and Product tend to be way more in-tune with customers and don't make boneheaded decisions like this. Another easy tell: the company was shocked by the reaction of users. That meant the company wasn't aware of user impressions of the decision. That also meant Product/Marketing teams weren't involved in the decision.
When the "what does it cost us to test this compatibility" calculus comes out as more expensive than "what is the cost of the backlash to our company," you realize that Engineering divisions without enough resources are driving this type of decision, 99 times out of 100.
Also, want to point out that philips is not "extorting money" from other companies - they can choose to enter the "friends of" program to make the general consumer feel better, or choose not to, at their discretion.
The class of user that realizes any zigbee bulb will work with a hue hub is already technically proficient, and will more often than not be willing to take on any associated "risks."
When I'm interviewing a designer, I don't take it as a positive or negative that they have a dribbble account. If they're interviewing for a position that is primarily visual design, I will peruse their stuff there just to get a sense of their style and capability, but not as a final deterministic factor on their hireability.
Dribbble was never really meant to be a place where people showcased their process, just a place where they could throw out a quick snippet to get reactions. Visual designers find that extremely helpful. If you're not versed in the ideas of typography, color theory, moodboarding, concepting, or any of the other methodologies and tools in a visual designer's wheelhouse, then looking from the outside in at Dribbble can make it seem like a world filled with trite, inefficient, fantastical non-reality.
You're not alone in this. Even I, as a former visual designer, have to tell myself that when I go clicking through Dribbble. It's not a place to showcase fully-polished, finished products - it's not a product marketing site. It's not a place to showcase the messy process of product design - it's not a portfolio site. It's a place where people can toss out ideas and get feedback on the micro-points of it. The colors, they typography, the alignment. Start to expect anything more and the model of the entire site falls apart.
For better or worse, Dribbble is not built to scale as a place for the critique of the entire design process. I think that's where this article gets it wrong. There are plenty of things to critique the site for - the lack of real meaningful engagement, for example, or the highly exclusive invite-only nature, for another - but fundamentally the OPs of this article are projecting thoughts and ideas about what they think/want Dribble to be vs what it actually is.
TL; DR: Dribbble is a place to showcase digital visual art and design artifacts, not a meaningful UX or UI portfolio catalogue.
Unfortunately, the hard truth of it is that most "UX people" are in environments where the post-implementation cycle is ignored. For as many companies out there that claim to embrace the "UX process," I'd say that well over 80% of them don't actually embrace it beyond feature release.
I work in Ad tech. No one is capturing anyone's voices to serve them ads via their mobile devices. People are often segmented by location and proximity to interests, however. If someone nearby (a neighbor, perhaps) searched for pest control? Guess what, you're now in a likely segment of people looking for pest control. Boss searched for a canon printer at work? You're in that segment, too, until your interest score drops and you're removed from that audience segment. This is pretty universal - you can even see what Google's got you pegged for being interested in by going here: https://www.google.com/settings/ads
TL;DR: There are like-minded people in very close proximity to you, searching for the same things that you search for/mention/use/lust after, and you're getting lumped in with them.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/feature-richness-and-user-en...
This also falls under the "myth of the stupid user." http://infodesign.com.au/usabilityresources/articles/themyth...
Be very careful about conflating the two issues. Usability studies have shown that users struggle with inappropriately labelled hamburger menus. Usability studies have also shown that users of intermediate to advanced skill do not struggle with right click. One is an issue regarding appropriate labelling and visual affordance, and the other is one of system and hardware affordances.
Google's Mathias Duarte advocated as such at UXPA last year in his keynote.
Think about it this way - design trends are just manifestations of a particular temporal affinity towards one aesthetic or another. Machines can measure this and expound as well as react to it at a much faster scale than the human mind can.
Design isn't art. There are way too many designers out there who think it is. Art is art. Design is about solving problems. You can and totally should automate as much of that as possible.
> We created bots to trade against incoming orders. They were like my friends. I even named them! My favorite was the “Jesse Livermore” bot. Opportunistic to a fault.
> The bots would run every day and place orders against each other so the market looked like it was exhibiting lots of price movement and volume. For added credibility, we randomly generated trading histories for each company going all the way back to last year. So we had historical price and volume in addition to streaming quotes for chart data.
and by then letting people speculatively place their own money into the already unbalanced and illegal equation, you somehow managed to wipe your hands of any responsibility for their actions?
What in god's name are you smoking? You got off easy with a 20k fine. You belong in prison.
Oh, ok.