Replace $TOPIC with eye-tracking, tagging, FAQs, site-maps, tag clouds, live help, progressive disclosure, auto-completion, and so on, depending on which debate is the flavour of the month.
We need to move forward.
Design Debates 2009
You're new here? You should subscribe to our feed. We write articles about the business of web apps, application design and consulting.
12 Comments
Your point is?
Posted by N at 9:33 am on 22 April, 2009.
Oh Hi “N”
My point is that cyclical debates about the merits of techniques are a waste of time.
Posted by Des at 9:38 am on 22 April, 2009.
Can we put “Debates about the merits of Design Debates” into $TOPIC?
Posted by UberAlex at 10:19 am on 22 April, 2009.
@Alex - No. That doesn’t make sense.
Posted by Des at 10:29 am on 22 April, 2009.
Show me a tag cloud used well. I want to see it with my own eyes.
Posted by Pierce at 11:36 am on 22 April, 2009.
I agree. And I apologize for my feeble retort to Jared’s FAQ challenge. Debate turned to one-upsmanship. Ugh. Anyway, way to call B.S., Des.
Posted by Andy Rutledge at 11:43 am on 22 April, 2009.
To elaborate: I’m not missing your point, I just wasn’t aware that the tag-cloud debate was cyclical. I thought it just had one half-cycle, at the end of which everyone agrees they’re bad. So I’m curious.
Posted by Pierce at 11:45 am on 22 April, 2009.
@Andy - Thanks
It wasn’t specific to you & Jared - you should have a read through the iXDA mailing list.
These types of debates along naming wars (am I a designer, or an IXD, or an IA) break my heart.
Posted by Des Traynor at 11:56 am on 22 April, 2009.
THANKS for writing this. These are long-felt sentiments for me.
Our validation as designers should never be assessed by the things we can criticize, but rather by what we can produce. That is to say, not what we can tear down, but what we can build. (Of course there’s a place for criticism… but not as the focal point of our interactions.)
You guys are awesome. I love your blog.
Posted by Rewdy at 5:14 pm on 22 April, 2009.
I think the issue here is not to point out bad examples, but good examples. Anyone can complain about a design issue but if you want to provide value with your writing show people positive examples and not rants on why you hate something. Hopefully others will follow your good examples.
Posted by Julian Powers at 5:36 pm on 18 May, 2009.
Posted by Yigit Ozdamar at 7:56 pm on 6 June, 2009.
A related problem to the “I saw $TOPIC done poorly therefore it shouldn’t be used” fallacy is the “Wile E Coyote” engineering anti-pattern. NASA demonstrates this pattern on occasion, as do many large risk-averse entities. It begins by attempting some new design, practice, methodology, etc. (or combination thereof) which continues until project failure, after which the design/practice/methodology becomes delegitimized and a completely different design becomes the target for the next round. Cycle repeatedly.
Posted by Wedge at 8:17 pm on 18 June, 2009.