Why have today's designers stopped dreaming?

Re:Why have today's designers stopped dreaming? by gdubs on Sunday April 13, 2014 @12:54PM (#7581874)

Pretty bold claim that the tired design described (in such a funny way) in the article is some kind of über design and all subsequent designs will be incremental tweaks on it...

Isn't it a little like saying everything should be written in Java because it's safe and who can afford to take risks?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained I'd say. Taking a bit of risk on marketing can help differentiate. Isn't it also a risk to go with what's common, blending in with the pack?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why have today's designers stopped dreaming? by derefr on Sunday April 13, 2014 @02:40PM (#7582358)

I think the claim is something more like:

• UX is good when it works in tandem with human cognition and psychology.

• HCI science--the study of human cognition and psychology, as it relates to doing UX--can point us toward designs that are objectively better in their human usability.

• A design radical-enough to not look or work like current UX--a novel "UX paradigm"--would, at this point, necessarily be one that ignores what we currently know about HCI. It would therefore, probably, be horrible. (Individual designs from such a novel paradigm could be surprisingly okay, if they manage to find some other local maximum in UX-space--but since the paradigm goes against the grain of human intuition, it wouldn't generate any globally optimal designs.)

[ Parent | on HN ]