March 26, 2015 at 18:39Grandfather UX Design: Layout Designer - Pest
Hello everybody. I decided to return to layout after a break of five years, breaking through technology. I was surprised to find that technology just started to work, while layout designers became cheaper. But if the word “UX” is indicated in the document, then the cost of work increases at least two times, at the same production costs - a rather interesting proposal. I went to watch video files ( God, there are a million video files in Russian ), and was a little dumbfounded (the word was changed).
I do not consider materials of the form here: “we will try to drive a nail into stone, rail and wood; we will further evaluate the result ”, and materials of the form:“ all children who have learned to roll over on their stomach must certainly start to make up ”- this is a subtle point even in serious materials, when a technical specialist with a UI / UX prefix falls into, say, a block and gets to the letters that carry the message to the screen - text, pictures and other things. And ceases to be a specialist outside the code.
Like ten years ago, most coders with any prefixes work as circus bears. Tricks are our goal and measure of professionalism.
Then a few points, how to stop being a bear, and try to be human.
It’s easy, you just need to understand and digest a few things.
All basic and semantic tags are needed for marking up the text in the order in which you want to transfer it to the end user, and are an extra load that needs to be minimized to the state "we completely transferred the structure of the document." The only tag that has real, breakthrough meaning regarding the library / catalog system is the HTML anchor.
The rethinking of this concept is based on the development of a browser as a service, for example, in Yandex, but in the base, in the kernel, the browser still displays the text. And the browser has little relation to the work of a typesetter (UI / UX specialist). Like a table for food.
After creating the document tree, your role as a typesetter - a technical specialist - is completely exhausted. Then comes the satisfaction of your ego and the ego of your boss / customer in the field of "I know better how to submit it." All this is shown by the browser, and the user reads - or what he does there.
Ego satisfaction is a pretty lucrative business.
If you subtract all this work from the system, the user will still receive the necessary information through the link “document - search system”, in which semantics are the real role of the layout designer. In confirmation of these words, look in the browser of your smartphone. One of the constantly visible buttons is “throw out the entire interface and read what I need already”.
Moreover, by default, the document is shown completely in a semantic, adaptive, fast and scalable design. You break everything to come to a start.
All that you have is a bold assumption that right now in those browsers that you used in testing, everything is going fine, and there is some hope that in those that used to be, everything will be quite good; as well as the illusion of an agreement that there are some web standards that define at least something outside the basic structure of the document and the anchor tag.
Understand that the question of Progressive Enhancement / Graceful Degradation specifically for the screen you are looking at is a question of two to three years, and here you have again a clean text without whistle-blowers.
This is a great picture of how technology is rejected by content.
The browser is quite normal in itself. The problems begin in the issues of breaking the flow / making interactive / adding the interface to the document. All these questions were raised not by the people who read the document, but by the people who sorted the document and tried to “improve” what was.
The question is that most of the people (people, including coders) are still not the most savvy creatures. And it is precisely the request of the majority that the successful commercial product answers.
The most affected browsers are those that respond most quickly to the request. The death of the Internet explorer came from the fact that he fully responded to the request of the mass market. As soon as the manual creation of sites ceased to be a marginal occupation and went into services, suddenly the support of standards became possible because it was profitable. And you can finally kill the product.
Therefore, you are just a representative of a crowd of barbarians who pick their browser not one by one, but by a crowd according to some abstractly agreed principles.
For example, a well-known task is how to display one piece of text in several columns. This task has several elegant solutions, among which there is not one needed.
Because on the web you do not need to read one text in several columns.
And so much where (see horizontal scrolling, imitation of physical paging, etc.)
Out of layout. Simple - an interface is a matter of something. Without “something,” it is a collection of buttons and states.
It’s just a continuous stream of improvements of one idea, you don’t need to go to the bottom, you need to learn how to confidently choose the right tool, and evaluate its life cycle. In five years, yes there, in a year everything will be different. Focus on speed. Then you will find an individual to finish and support.
Just understand the idea, convey it and everything will attach itself.
Text is the most effective way of conveying thoughts. Everything else is a crocodile game with a poorly predicted result.
The whole UX / UI process is editing text with new controls.
Everything in the interface is consumed jointly, and if your work does not add anything, the best thing is not to do it. Keep in mind the whole process of working with content (text, audio, video, what is there with you) - from beginning to end, understand what it is, love it.
Write text, record audio, video, anything. You need to feel the condition, evaluate the quality of the original material, understand perfectly well where you can add and where to lose.
The team is needed then, so that everyone most efficiently makes their own product site. If you have a layout in which changing several parameters clearly does not lead to product degradation, but leads to faster production and cheaper support, then you should go to the designer, explain what and how. Better on paper.
I understand that the task as a process is more interesting than the result, but you need to keep yourself in control.
You will never write a good product, even a piece of a good product, if you have no idea about the full cycle of production, transmission and use of content (including separately from your product). By studying the matter, you will learn how to pose the right questions and make decisions that are beneficial to the product.
Here, by "content" I understand not only the input and output from the product, but also its transformation within the production cycle and during operation.
I do not consider materials of the form here: “we will try to drive a nail into stone, rail and wood; we will further evaluate the result ”, and materials of the form:“ all children who have learned to roll over on their stomach must certainly start to make up ”- this is a subtle point even in serious materials, when a technical specialist with a UI / UX prefix falls into, say, a block and gets to the letters that carry the message to the screen - text, pictures and other things. And ceases to be a specialist outside the code.
Like ten years ago, most coders with any prefixes work as circus bears. Tricks are our goal and measure of professionalism.
Then a few points, how to stop being a bear, and try to be human.
It’s easy, you just need to understand and digest a few things.
Browser needed to show text
All basic and semantic tags are needed for marking up the text in the order in which you want to transfer it to the end user, and are an extra load that needs to be minimized to the state "we completely transferred the structure of the document." The only tag that has real, breakthrough meaning regarding the library / catalog system is the HTML anchor.
The rethinking of this concept is based on the development of a browser as a service, for example, in Yandex, but in the base, in the kernel, the browser still displays the text. And the browser has little relation to the work of a typesetter (UI / UX specialist). Like a table for food.
The browser shows without you
After creating the document tree, your role as a typesetter - a technical specialist - is completely exhausted. Then comes the satisfaction of your ego and the ego of your boss / customer in the field of "I know better how to submit it." All this is shown by the browser, and the user reads - or what he does there.
Ego satisfaction is a pretty lucrative business.
If you subtract all this work from the system, the user will still receive the necessary information through the link “document - search system”, in which semantics are the real role of the layout designer. In confirmation of these words, look in the browser of your smartphone. One of the constantly visible buttons is “throw out the entire interface and read what I need already”.
Moreover, by default, the document is shown completely in a semantic, adaptive, fast and scalable design. You break everything to come to a start.
You don't control anything
All that you have is a bold assumption that right now in those browsers that you used in testing, everything is going fine, and there is some hope that in those that used to be, everything will be quite good; as well as the illusion of an agreement that there are some web standards that define at least something outside the basic structure of the document and the anchor tag.
Understand that the question of Progressive Enhancement / Graceful Degradation specifically for the screen you are looking at is a question of two to three years, and here you have again a clean text without whistle-blowers.
This is a great picture of how technology is rejected by content.
You are to blame for everything that happens with the support of standards.
The browser is quite normal in itself. The problems begin in the issues of breaking the flow / making interactive / adding the interface to the document. All these questions were raised not by the people who read the document, but by the people who sorted the document and tried to “improve” what was.
The question is that most of the people (people, including coders) are still not the most savvy creatures. And it is precisely the request of the majority that the successful commercial product answers.
The most affected browsers are those that respond most quickly to the request. The death of the Internet explorer came from the fact that he fully responded to the request of the mass market. As soon as the manual creation of sites ceased to be a marginal occupation and went into services, suddenly the support of standards became possible because it was profitable. And you can finally kill the product.
Therefore, you are just a representative of a crowd of barbarians who pick their browser not one by one, but by a crowd according to some abstractly agreed principles.
Most browser problems are not a problem.
For example, a well-known task is how to display one piece of text in several columns. This task has several elegant solutions, among which there is not one needed.
Because on the web you do not need to read one text in several columns.
And so much where (see horizontal scrolling, imitation of physical paging, etc.)
Where is UX / UI?
Out of layout. Simple - an interface is a matter of something. Without “something,” it is a collection of buttons and states.
Technology doesn't mean anything
It’s just a continuous stream of improvements of one idea, you don’t need to go to the bottom, you need to learn how to confidently choose the right tool, and evaluate its life cycle. In five years, yes there, in a year everything will be different. Focus on speed. Then you will find an individual to finish and support.
Just understand the idea, convey it and everything will attach itself.
Learn the text
Text is the most effective way of conveying thoughts. Everything else is a crocodile game with a poorly predicted result.
The whole UX / UI process is editing text with new controls.
- Give information in whole, finished pieces.
- Move away from flow blocks, see flow text, flow meaning.
- Text can be scaled. Not a font, text.
Find and add meaning
Everything in the interface is consumed jointly, and if your work does not add anything, the best thing is not to do it. Keep in mind the whole process of working with content (text, audio, video, what is there with you) - from beginning to end, understand what it is, love it.
Do it yourself content
Write text, record audio, video, anything. You need to feel the condition, evaluate the quality of the original material, understand perfectly well where you can add and where to lose.
Better not to do
The team is needed then, so that everyone most efficiently makes their own product site. If you have a layout in which changing several parameters clearly does not lead to product degradation, but leads to faster production and cheaper support, then you should go to the designer, explain what and how. Better on paper.
I understand that the task as a process is more interesting than the result, but you need to keep yourself in control.
What for
You will never write a good product, even a piece of a good product, if you have no idea about the full cycle of production, transmission and use of content (including separately from your product). By studying the matter, you will learn how to pose the right questions and make decisions that are beneficial to the product.
Here, by "content" I understand not only the input and output from the product, but also its transformation within the production cycle and during operation.