

I am a hacker, not a decorator - Design candies are not for me - Sparklin
http://www.pixelonomics.com/design-candies-not-for-me/

======
ThomPete
Some people would claim that his own site is over-designed and too pretty. He
isn't exactly following the Bauhaus tradition himself.

Pretty can be functional, in fact pretty is functional. Pretty is about
expression and exploration. Pretty doesn't solve it all alone but neither does
function.

Would you critique a blogger because his posts where way too philosophical and
reflective rather than utilitarian?

Would you critique a developer for creating experiments in HTML5 that have no
utility?

I would agree with him if HP, Amazon, BP and all the other fortune 500
companies where pretty over functional but they are not.

His argument is based on sites who's purpose is to be explorative and
expressive not purely functional.

Design is not about style, but style is a tool the designer can use.

~~~
kingsidharth
There is a difference between experimenting and intention. Experiments are
fine but this is more about what you put in practice.

Anyways, I don't critique their experiment but their intention. If you
experiment to make it 'prettier' then it's a fail. Experiment to make it more
functional.

Your point "functional is pretty" - is very true. Nothing better than the
thing that works.

~~~
ThomPete
With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their
intention?

Judging intention is probably the least useful form of argument.

Why should it be a fail to experiment with making it prettier? What exactly is
wrong with that?

You are falling victim to your own critique. You are judging based on your
subjective opinion about some ones intentions. Which is fine. Just don't claim
it to be somehow a more rational argument.

~~~
kelnos
_With what right do you consider yourself in the position to judge their
intention?_

This is easier with some kind of sites than with others. If it's a company
site trying to sell a product or a service, then obviously the intention is
to... sell you the product or service. If the "design" doesn't push that
intention or gets in the way of you learning about the product and why you
want to buy it, then they've failed.

With personal sites and blogs it's harder to judge, and I'd agree with you.
But I think in those places design (at least in the sense that the author is
talking about) is less important. Someone's personal site might in part be a
sandbox or playground to try out new HTML5 or CSS techniques.

Everyone's opinion is subjective. Claiming that that somehow invalidates the
argument is disingenuous. Like everything, it's a continuum -- some things are
easier to "objectively" judge, others are not and are more a matter of taste
and experimentation.

------
Dramatize
Here are a few pretty and functional designs (in my opinion):

<http://www.airbnb.com/> <http://www.flickr.com/> <http://carbonmade.com/>
<http://tenderapp.com/> <http://new.myfonts.com> <http://www.made.com/>

~~~
pyre

      > http://new.myfonts.com
    

Way too busy.

------
wccrawford
The car door analogy is faulty. A designer spent a lot of time making that car
door look pretty -after- an engineer made it work. It isn't that exact shape
just because it works.

~~~
dkokelley
I disagree. The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms,
positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move
the door. In essence, the engineer 'designed' the door. The author's argument
is that design refers to functionality and usability - not only aesthetic
appeal. Yes, appealing colors and gradients make the site easier on the eyes,
and should be included as a subset of the entire design process.

My interpretation is that design encompasses all UI interactions, and the
author feels that too many self-described designers defer to the aesthetics
while underplaying other important considerations like usability and
intuitiveness, even though the title of designer implies (or should imply)
those.

~~~
kelnos
_The engineer made it work, by understanding the handle mechanisms,
positioning it so that it was reachable and provided enough leverage to move
the door._

Did an engineer design that, or did the equivalent of an interaction designer
do it?

~~~
dkokelley
A car door analogy is weak, simply because I don't know enough about how they
are designed and built. Maybe an artist goes to town, and then the engineers
and interaction team have to bend over backwards to make the concept work
(probably a bad way go about making car doors!).

Still my point is that aesthetics, functionality, and usability are all
subsets of design (according to the author).

------
jforman
If the designers you work with prefer "pretty" over "usable," then you should
find better designers. I've worked with plenty who do not fit this tunnel-
vision visual designer stereotype.

The article is based on a false dichotomy that's part of the unending design
v. engineering meta-argument. "Best design is ugly – and it works"? Rather,
the best design works - and is pretty.

~~~
kingsidharth
I guess I messed up with words here.

Pretty v/s Decoration. Rephrasing: "Best design is not decorated – and it
works. + It is pretty, because it works."

------
nayanshah
Hackers are good at design too, but not in the visual aspect but in the
structural and architectural ones. Hackers do strive for simplicity and
elegance in the smallest hack. Best example is of Unix. It has this inherent
"design" in it, which makes it appealing to all hackers. Add a layout of
awesome UI and you have the Mac. All the rich features with a decent
packaging.

------
egometry
If you follow delicious hotlist, you'll find some of the unusable-but-pretty
designs he mentions... but you'll find more of the pretty-but-usable ones.

The usable get rewarded for their usability by being used.

~~~
kingsidharth
No true-er words were every spoken before.

Thanks for throwing this perspective man. Now I know I really should stop
caring about CSS Galleries and 'make it pretty designer gatherings'

A designer's true reward is 'used'.

------
gte910h
Perhaps a bit combative, but yeah, he's got a good point about pretty over
functional

~~~
Sparklin
Ya, I think he was pissed at designers makeing non-functional "pretty" sites

~~~
_delirium
That's not as common as it used to be, is it? I do still run into sites that
annoy me, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was during the first wave of
"this entire site will be in Flash because that lets us do cool design stuff"
web design.

~~~
kingsidharth
Well now they have a new one. "Let's make it web 2.0"

And what they mean is more 'gradients and bigger buttons'. Instead of more
'easy to interact and find a way to connect" (true spirit of web 2.0)

~~~
jamesteow
Web 2.0 could also be construed as a philosophical and artistic (pertaining to
visual style) movement.

------
d0m
In my experience, pretty wins over functional. I'm the first to be saddened by
that but it's true.

~~~
zalew
like gmail or google docs are pretty? or youtube player? or google.com?

