Dedovskoye UX design: coder - pest
Hello to all. I decided to return to the layout after a break of five years, breaking through technology. I was surprised to find that the technology just started working, and the layout makers became cheaper. But if you specify the word "UX" in the document, then the cost of the work increases two times at least, with the same production costs - a rather interesting proposal. I went to watch video files ( God, there are a million video files in Russian ), and I was a little taken aback (the word was changed).
I do not consider the materials of the form here: “we will try to drive a nail into stone, rail and wood; further, we will evaluate the result, ”and the materials of the form:“ all children who have learned to roll over on their stomach should certainly begin to impose ”- this is a subtle point even in serious materials, when a technician with the UI / UX prefix fails inside, let's say, block and gets to the letters that carry the message on the screen - text, pictures and other things. And it ceases to be a specialist outside the code.
Like ten years ago, most of the maker-ups with any prefixes work as circus bears. Tricks are our goal and measure of professionalism.
')
Then a few theses, how to stop being a bear, and try to be a man.
It's easy, you just need to understand and digest a few things.
All basic and semantic tags are needed to mark up the text in the order in which you want it to pass to the end user, and are an extra load that needs to be minimized to the state of “we completely transferred the structure of the document”. The only tag that has a real, breakthrough meaning in relation to 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 database, in the core, the browser still shows the text. And the browser has a little to do with the work of the 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 area “I know better how to submit it”. All this shows the browser, and reads - or what it does - the user.
Satisfying the ego is quite a profitable business.
If we subtract all this work from the system, the user will still get the necessary information due to the link “document - search engine”, in which the real role of the layout maker is semantics. In confirmation of these words, look in the browser of your smartphone. One of the constantly visible buttons "throw out the entire interface and read what I need."
Moreover, by default the document is shown completely in a semantic, adaptive, fast and scalable design. You break everything to come to the beginning.
All that you have is a bold assumption that it is now in those browsers that you have used in testing that everything is going fine, and some hope that in those that used to be, everything will be quite good; as well as the illusion of 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 to which you are looking is a question of two or three years, and before you is again a clean text without any whistlers.
This is a beautiful picture of how content rejects technology.
The browser is quite normal in itself. Problems begin in matters of breaking the flow / make interactive / add the interface to the document. All these questions were raised not by the people who read the document, but by the people who dismantled the document and tried to “improve” what was.
The question is that the majority of people (people consist, including layout designers) are not very clever creatures. And it is precisely to the request of the majority that a successful commercial product answers.
Most suffered browsers that most quickly responded to the request. The death of Internet Explorer is due to the fact that it fully responded to the request of the mass market. As soon as manual creation of websites 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 the crowd of barbarians who pick the browser not one by one, but by a crowd on some abstractly agreed principles.
For example, the 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 necessary.
Because in the web, reading one text in several columns is not necessary.
And there are so many places (see horizontal scrolling, imitation of physical page turning, etc.)
Beyond the layout. Simple - the interface is a matter of something. Without “something,” this is a set of buttons and states.
It's just a continuous stream of improvements to one idea, you don’t need to get to the bottom, you need to learn how to confidently choose the right tool, and evaluate its life cycle. In five years, so what, in a year everything will be different. Focus on speed. Then you will find a separate person for finished and support.
Just understand the idea, bring it and everything will attach itself.
Text is the most effective way to convey thoughts. All the rest is a crocodile game with a poorly predictable result.
The whole process of UX / UI is text editing with the help of new controls.
Everything in the interface is consumed together, and if your work adds nothing, the best is not to do it. Keep in your head the whole process of working with content (text, audio, video, what have you) - from beginning to end, understand what it is, love it.
Write text, record audio, video, anything. You need to feel the state, assess the quality of the original material, perfectly understand where that can be added, and where to lose.
The team is needed so that each one makes the product section most efficiently. If you have a layout in which changing several parameters obviously will not lead to a deterioration of the product, but will lead to faster production and cheaper support - you will 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 control yourself.
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, transfer and use of content (including separately from your product). Studying the case, you will learn to ask the right questions and make decisions that are beneficial to the product.
Here, by “content” I mean not only something entering and emerging from a product, but also its transformation within the production cycle and in the process of exploitation.
I do not consider the materials of the form here: “we will try to drive a nail into stone, rail and wood; further, we will evaluate the result, ”and the materials of the form:“ all children who have learned to roll over on their stomach should certainly begin to impose ”- this is a subtle point even in serious materials, when a technician with the UI / UX prefix fails inside, let's say, block and gets to the letters that carry the message on the screen - text, pictures and other things. And it ceases to be a specialist outside the code.
Like ten years ago, most of the maker-ups with any prefixes work as circus bears. Tricks are our goal and measure of professionalism.
')
Then a few theses, how to stop being a bear, and try to be a man.
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 to mark up the text in the order in which you want it to pass to the end user, and are an extra load that needs to be minimized to the state of “we completely transferred the structure of the document”. The only tag that has a real, breakthrough meaning in relation to 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 database, in the core, the browser still shows the text. And the browser has a little to do with the work of the typesetter (UI / UX specialist). Like a table for food.
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 area “I know better how to submit it”. All this shows the browser, and reads - or what it does - the user.
Satisfying the ego is quite a profitable business.
If we subtract all this work from the system, the user will still get the necessary information due to the link “document - search engine”, in which the real role of the layout maker is semantics. In confirmation of these words, look in the browser of your smartphone. One of the constantly visible buttons "throw out the entire interface and read what I need."
Moreover, by default the document is shown completely in a semantic, adaptive, fast and scalable design. You break everything to come to the beginning.
You have no control
All that you have is a bold assumption that it is now in those browsers that you have used in testing that everything is going fine, and some hope that in those that used to be, everything will be quite good; as well as the illusion of 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 to which you are looking is a question of two or three years, and before you is again a clean text without any whistlers.
This is a beautiful picture of how content rejects technology.
You personally are to blame for everything that happens with standards support.
The browser is quite normal in itself. Problems begin in matters of breaking the flow / make interactive / add the interface to the document. All these questions were raised not by the people who read the document, but by the people who dismantled the document and tried to “improve” what was.
The question is that the majority of people (people consist, including layout designers) are not very clever creatures. And it is precisely to the request of the majority that a successful commercial product answers.
Most suffered browsers that most quickly responded to the request. The death of Internet Explorer is due to the fact that it fully responded to the request of the mass market. As soon as manual creation of websites 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 the crowd of barbarians who pick the browser not one by one, but by a crowd on some abstractly agreed principles.
Most browser problems are not a problem.
For example, the 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 necessary.
Because in the web, reading one text in several columns is not necessary.
And there are so many places (see horizontal scrolling, imitation of physical page turning, etc.)
Where is the UX / UI
Beyond the layout. Simple - the interface is a matter of something. Without “something,” this is a set of buttons and states.
Technology means nothing
It's just a continuous stream of improvements to one idea, you don’t need to get to the bottom, you need to learn how to confidently choose the right tool, and evaluate its life cycle. In five years, so what, in a year everything will be different. Focus on speed. Then you will find a separate person for finished and support.
Just understand the idea, bring it and everything will attach itself.
Study the text
Text is the most effective way to convey thoughts. All the rest is a crocodile game with a poorly predictable result.
The whole process of UX / UI is text editing with the help of new controls.
- Give information in whole, complete pieces.
- Move away from the flow blocks, see the flow of the text, the flow of meaning.
- Text can be scaled. Not a font, text.
Find and add meaning
Everything in the interface is consumed together, and if your work adds nothing, the best is not to do it. Keep in your head the whole process of working with content (text, audio, video, what have you) - from beginning to end, understand what it is, love it.
Make your own content you work with.
Write text, record audio, video, anything. You need to feel the state, assess the quality of the original material, perfectly understand where that can be added, and where to lose.
Better not to do
The team is needed so that each one makes the product section most efficiently. If you have a layout in which changing several parameters obviously will not lead to a deterioration of the product, but will lead to faster production and cheaper support - you will 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 control yourself.
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, transfer and use of content (including separately from your product). Studying the case, you will learn to ask the right questions and make decisions that are beneficial to the product.
Here, by “content” I mean not only something entering and emerging from a product, but also its transformation within the production cycle and in the process of exploitation.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/254131/
All Articles