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 526331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Wed 11th Jul 2012 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Or for programmers to learn to design or maybe even, dare I say it, for designers and programmers to work together.


I personally think programs should be written to be as skinnable as possible so that designers and programmers don't have to work together at all. The programmers provide the functionality and infrastructure as modular (signal driven) as possible.* Designers just design the interface and glues everything together with signals however they like.

But actually my comment was meant to be taken as - if designers really want to get noticed above the noise of many designers coming onto the scene, they really should know enough programming to produce working prototypes of interfaces.

As others have noted, the website is all about flash which creates an impression but overshadows any suspicion that it had any interesting ideas. It ends up only showcasing the designer's aesthetics in website design and not the actual concept he was selling.

* I work on Eclipse plug-ins. It fails really hard - its design patterns end up completely going against the principles of "information hiding" into full blown coupling.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Nelson on Wed 11th Jul 2012 07:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This is exactly what XAML allows generally, if you're a purist and follow a design patter to the t.

Often it's a lot more work than what it helps, so I'll settle for something like 80% - 90% frictionless Developer-Designer experiences.

The designer rapid prototyping and iteration is still up there though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by dsmogor on Thu 12th Jul 2012 09:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I heard Adobe Fireworx is quite good on doing functional prototypes with a bit of JS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by lucas_maximus on Thu 12th Jul 2012 17:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I personally think programs should be written to be as skinnable as possible so that designers and programmers don't have to work together at all. The programmers provide the functionality and infrastructure as modular (signal driven) as possible.* Designers just design the interface and glues everything together with signals however they like.


I disagree, I think both should have an appreciation of the other so they can communicate effectively when developing a product.

Reply Parent Score: 2