Kinda odd that in their one example (https://refactoring-ui.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/landi...), the version on the left appears more interactive (since the hit-boxes are well-defined), minimal (since it avoids useless drop shadow), easier to recognize the content's organization (since the contrast between elements is higher), and functional (since it's more compact without sacrificing aesthetics). The low-contrast layout on the right with lots of mouse-dead-zones is a trend, not better design.
The subjectivity of design has always baffled me. I looked at the example and immediately thought "wow, the one on the right looks so much better". I truly don't understand how the one on the left could be preferred.
It does seem like you're arguing against the "usability", which I think is a stretch. The hover state provides interactivity, the right has far less going on (minimal), the drop shadow does nothing either way and more compact does not mean more functional, I would argue the exact opposite actually.
Yeah I saw that example and thought that the left was better. Which got me thinking about how subjective design can be. Which also reinforces the struggle I have to take a lot of design seriously.
There's a lot of really important parts of design. Stuff that when I'm told about, it's immediately obvious and makes sense. But then there's all this nonsense mixed in, often followed by a "you'll just have to trust me" kind of response from the designer.
I too prefer the one on the left. However, the one on the right looks more laid back and appropriate for a fun/game kind of application, and the one on the left looks more technical and serious, at least from my uneducated point of view.
And of course, you can make a similar list of complaints about the right:
- Visual "desiderata" in the form of noisy and distracting grid lines
- Poor information hierarchy that reduces the contrast between the content and the search box
- The lack of separation between content and action buttons also draws the spotlight off of the content
If you subscribe to Tufte's school of thought on proper visual information design de-emphasizing and/or removing as much as possible in favor of focusing on data and content the right is objectively better.
Instantly bought. Steve and Adam have the absolute most practical and realistic design material out there -- I've had so many false starts with other design books that emphasis the art and design backgrounds instead of their approach: building software.
I've been a software engineer writing code for my whole career and the RefactoringUI material has helped me grow my design ability more than anything else I've tried. It's great for people that want to make their work projects look better, want to build a side-project that doesn't look god awful, or become more self-reliant in the quest to be the ultimate "company of one" product maker.
Here's my portfolio that I've been developing since I started following Steve and Adam's tweets/posts/videos: https://dribbble.com/swanson
Regarding the price: I think it's totally fair, especially given how much free content RefactoringUI has put out. $80-$149 is worth it to me for the years of distilled experience (and to support more of this material getting made). If it's too much, check out the free stuff they have: https://twitter.com/i/moments/994601867987619840https://www.youtube.com/steveschoger and save up :)
If you want a taste of the book prior to a purchase, you might explore a list of Steven's tips he has historically published on twitter[1]. The positive response to many of them likely put validity to the thought of publishing a book of them together.
Yeah. This was an instant but for me. Knowing his past materials and insight. Any designer would see this as a strong investment. I can use this in future projects and keep this as a reference. Glad it was released.
Alternatively, Design for Hackers offers as well some good advise for creating an acceptable design without having to exercise your artistic skills (not too much, at least).
Some areas could be covered in more depth, but in general it lives to the promise of the title, providing good rules of thumb for which you don't need a good eye to apply them. It also contains a historical tour of visual design, satisfying the need of knowing where these rules come from (e.g. why designers care so much about font families and their proportions, and where the basic design vocabulary comes from), which is a welcome approach for inquisitive minds who want to know the reasons why a rule exist.
Worth noting that the $80 ($100 after initial intro discount expires), was a direct response to strong backlash after they published the original pricing two days back of $150 ($250).
Twitter (where Steven and Adam are active) was fierce with debate per the merits of the price[1]. The $80 "basics" package was introduced in an immediate response.
bought it earlier, read it pretty quickly. It's good, there is some gold in there and a lot of practical advice. It does feel a little bit expensive though, some sections are a little thin and this is made worse by the use of multiple blank pages between sections which makes it feel like the authors have padded it out.
On the other hand I'm likely to refer back to this book a lot over the next few years, so in that light $80 doesn't feel that bad.
I think I'd have preferred a living resource / subscription model rather than a one off book though.
I agree, that price seems too much without knowing how much I will like it ($79 and $149 USD). I'd suggest they break it up into 2-3 books at a lower price so it doesn't feel like such a commitment :) It does look very good though!
"It doesn’t take any graphic design talent to add a colored rectangle to your UI" - Adam & Steve.
Sums up my entire opinion about minimalism and graphic design. Minimal color, minimal shapes... minimal talent for maximum effect. It's not worth $80 to learn the right spot where to put a rectangle.
Don't know about the book thing, but great minimalism requires much more knowledge about design because you have less stuff to mask the clunkiness and your lack of ability.
Yeah I understand. However, design and art are inter-related. My point is in my humble opinion, design and function is very easy and does not require much talent, while art such as the Mona Lisa requires a lot of talent.
Design talent is more their experience of constant manipulation and testing of what works in certain situations. It's sort of like a UFC fighter and their counters - "if my opponent throws a kick I will check it with my own leg so I don't have the impact of the entire power." Experience is significant here because they wouldn't know what to do in the moment when it matters.
A designer is the same way, say you need a page designed, and they've been through this task so many times they know what works and what doesn't. The lack of knowledge and experience in this area only adds to the time it takes to create & finish something.
And so you're usually not paying a designer to throw a colored rectangle, you're paying them for the years they've invested in testing everything else.
Intuition gained from seeing UI widgets on the websites you use everyday covers 80% of what you talk about.
The only thing a designer has to offer is speed. It's like someone who works at a fast food restaurant flipping burgers. You flip a lot of burgers... of course you get fast. You design a lot of simple templates... of course you get fast.
Do you have any designs you can share to support your opinion? I look at the website for this book and I find that it looks really nice. There is nothing "flashy" but it just looks very polished and clean. I struggle with getting from "pretty good" to "really good". Fortunately most end users are happy with "pretty good".
I get what this picture is trying to do, I get it's aesthetic. But I also know that almost ZERO effort was spent making it. Many "designs" have a less obvious aspect of this issue and I believe that this book is just dealing with issues that are more or less obvious.
I care because I see a lot of it as fraudulent. Something I believe is trivial and easy is being packaged and sold as if it's a skill. Entire careers are made and paid for because someone advertises the layout of simple geometric shapes as a rare skill. It doesn't take a da vinci to make a flat design with text that is clearly readable.
People who contribute very little to society but get paid way more than they deserve.
Would you trust anything this book has to say?