Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jul 2012 01:24 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "We're able to produce absolutely stunning websites and mobile apps with great interaction design. Interfaces that are smooth and fun and let us understand information without even trying. But when it comes to email clients, we get a bit of a boring feeling, like using an old piece of software from 10 years ago. I think we can do better. So let's do that." Great ideas and beautiful design by Tobias van Schneider, but why he would forcefully shoehorn this clearly digital UI into Mac OS X is beyond me. It has no place there. This just screams Metro.
Thread beginning with comment 526306
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by WorknMan on Wed 11th Jul 2012 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

That is what XAML was meant to be for - programmers could focus on the heavy lifting backend whilst the front end could be worked on by experts in usability and design. Same can be done in the case of Mac OS X where backend and front end are separated rather than intermingled together.


So what happens if you're the programmer and don't have a designer working for you? I guess you're fundamentally boned. At least with Windows Forms and VB6, this wasn't really an issue.

As for the article in question, I can't really comment on it since I am visually impaired, and I can't use my screen reader, since the author made the whole f**king web page an image.

WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!

Reply Parent Score: 16

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Soulbender on Wed 11th Jul 2012 05:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I can't use my screen reader, since the author made the whole f**king web page an image.


Yeah, that's a big WTF even though I am not visually impaired. I mean really? In 2012? The whole page pretty much is a giant image?
Not a good start for showing off your awesome new email client design.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Nelson on Wed 11th Jul 2012 05:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You can write XAML without being a designer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by WorknMan on Wed 11th Jul 2012 22:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You can write XAML without being a designer.


You can write HTML without being a designer either, but the results are usually unpleasant ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by OSNevvs on Wed 11th Jul 2012 06:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

That really beats everything...This guy wants to reinvent a webmail, and he turns his page unreadable to visually impaired audience. Fail!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Morgan on Wed 11th Jul 2012 06:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Right there with you. My eyes aren't bad enough (yet) to need a screen reader, but would it have killed the guy to slice up his image and replace the rendered text with the real thing for those who do need it? Come on, I'm rusty when it comes to doing that kind of thing but I could manage it in about 20 minutes.

Or hell, at the very least embed the copy in alt text.

Yet another example of a supposedly great designer not using plain old common sense.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th Jul 2012 12:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Font replacement is pretty trivial (Cufon and the old text-indent: -9999px), and almost un-necessary these days since Google fonts and services such as Font-deck.

the font face property has been available since IE5.5 I believe or even earlier, it just that nobody seems to know how to use it.

Edited 2012-07-11 12:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by No it isnt on Wed 11th Jul 2012 10:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Designers have a reputation for being superficial wankers, and that web page is a great example as to why: it's set up to look nice, but without any respect for the medium it's supposed to work in. And so are the ideas presented, asking for "perfect spacing and clean typography". In email. Good luck with that.

Then again, the web site, despite his efforts to avoid the limitations of actual web design, is actually not well designed at all, not even for people without visual disabilities. It just looks fancy while ignoring function. It's a load of fluff.

There's one good idea in there: a priority inbox. I wish someone like Google will pick up that.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by phoudoin on Wed 11th Jul 2012 12:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

There's one good idea in there: a priority inbox. I wish someone like Google will pick up that.


One word: tags.

With filter, you can even automatically assign a priority tag to well-known senders or based on content.
Yeah, that looks like favorites senders feature.

Maybe this designer confuse looks boring with behave boring.
An infantilized looks may be funny to look at, may make you wish to lick your display device, but it doesn't make it automatically more efficient.

A hammer is an old looking tool. Still the best one to nail down anything...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by lucas_maximus on Thu 12th Jul 2012 17:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Designers have a reputation for being superficial wankers, and that web page is a great example as to why: it's set up to look nice, but without any respect for the medium it's supposed to work in. And so are the ideas presented, asking for "perfect spacing and clean typography". In email. Good luck with that.


While I agree that the majority of people who call themselves designers fall under this, real designers real will actually try to make something that not only looks nice but works nice.

The former group, I normally refer to them as artists.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Morgan on Wed 11th Jul 2012 14:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I emailed the author about the issue and he was very receptive, apologizing for ignoring accessibility rules and promising to ask his web developer friends for tips on doing it right in the future. He also said he would try to add alt text to the page as soon as possible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by lucas_maximus on Thu 12th Jul 2012 17:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is pretty good actually. Bravo if actually does it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by KLU9 on Fri 13th Jul 2012 22:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

For the visually impaired, here's what's written on the page...

When the first web page was published in the early 1990's there was no big difference to the web we know today. And that's the problem.

Technology has been evolving over the past couple of years. But I still turn text articles into a f#*king great jpeg, just like pisspoor excuses for webmasters used to do back in the 90s.

Technology has advanced, but I had to do this text-to-jpeg conversion manually, because there's no way to do it other than in my $800 edition of Adobe Photoshop.

How come then that the Web has never really changed? This ticked the part of my brain that likes to design boring fonts that "fix" the "problems" in Helvetica and which nobody will ever use.

I know of course that I can do better and I've done just that. You can attach my Nobel prize and send it to me at my .me address.

1. Text is useless and not fit for a creative workflow. All web creation programs (Dreamweaver, Indesign, ...er... FrontPage.... er... that's it) should *automatically* convert text into image files. Like jpegs. Or even better: animated GIFs!!

2. I'm always looking for ACTIONSTEPS (patented, copyrighted, registered trademark). Once I've created my FGJFT (f*#king great jpeg for text) webpage, I want my web editor to automatically offer logical next steps, like "Add auto-playing MIDI" or "Upload to following: Tripod, Angelfire, Geocities".

3. And why does nobody but me ever have the intelligence to think about ***stuff***? Christ, am I only one with a brain?

Thank you for basking in my worthiness.

Disclosure: I have edited the original article somewhat... you know, for length.

;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by zima on Mon 16th Jul 2012 03:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

When the first web page was published in the early 1990's there was no big difference to the web we know today. And that's the problem.

Technology has been evolving over the past couple of years. But I still turn text articles into a f#*king great jpeg, just like pisspoor excuses for webmasters used to do back in the 90s.

You know, the first browser didn't even really support (at first?) display of images within pages ...it opened them in new windows - window per content, maybe a user of WorldWideWeb wouldn't even notice much of a difference & that is how it's supposed to be? ;p
(but seriously, WorldWideWeb was in some ways nicer, being also a graphical editor)

Reply Parent Score: 2