Any explanation I provide for the linked article will only rob you of the sound logic that this article explains.
In a nutshell: it discusses how easily we give up on the web, when we should actually see differences in supported features as an opportunity.
It is very true today, but this article could have been written 10 years ago without many alterations. That’s how important it is to read it.
So read it. Then follow the author on Twitter.
"It is entirely possible—nay, desirable—to use features long before they are supported in every browser. That’s how we move the web forward. If we waited until there was universal support for a feature before we used it, we’d still be using CSS 1.0 and HTML 2.0."
Just as much as our job is to build something genuinely useful, something which really does make people’s working lives simpler, more pleasant and more productive, our job is also to understand what people think they want and then translate the value of Slack into their terms.
We Don’t Sell Saddles Here, by Stewart Butterfield.
I post this because, frankly, it is an exceptional piece of writing about product making, covering the gamut from core functionality to marketing and positioning and the larger, philosophical motivations behind trying to make something excellent.
I have no counterpoints; I agree with this entire piece. I recommend you read it, too.(via timoni)
This is a complicated thing to discuss, because you often get disagreement before people hear any facts.
That’s what happens with emotional things.
The linked article discusses the fact that there is an undercurrent in design over the past few years that is making things look good without improving their function.
Some others have called this the “dribblization” of design, because dribbble.com focuses so much on aesthetics and not at all on function.
One of the more subtle aspects of UX design is that UX designers can’t see their work. You can look at it, but you can’t see if it is done well.
We need tests and analytics and research to know if we have done well, and that’s actually a hard thing to get your head around. “It’s right there, and it looks great! How can it be bad?”
A beautiful thing and a useful thing are very different ideas.
UX debt can be dangerously easy to both overlook and underestimate, making it that much easier to take on and harder to pay down. Relatively easy tasks, like tweaking screen layouts or updating visual assets, can be so easy that they sink to the bottom of product priorities (“we can fix that anytime”). Harder tasks, like refactoring user flows or redesigning navigation systems, can be paralyzing because they have system-wide implications and offer no clear path to make piecemeal progress.User Experience Debt, by Vijay Sundaram (via timoni)
Worth a read