Designers are so out of touch. That whole criticism of Comic Sans is one example. Slowly, I'm coming to the conclusion that designers should never be employed, only consulted on a per-project basis. If they sit around 8 hours a day, they end up changing something or the other to justify their existence. But human beings are not used to change at such a rapid cadence. Humans take time to settle into a design and establish patterns of usage.
[flagged]
Please don't dig up historical comments in order to criticize someone like this. We should be able to respond to the argument presented in a comment or subthread in its standalone context.
Do you think that "being competent at design" is the only requirement for designers?
I would say that it's more important to be competent in determining how design is going to be understood and used by users in their individual workflows. Few are more competent to judge that than the users themselves.
I'm pretty sure most folks have seen and experienced the negative impacts of designers changing things for the sake of change (or to justify their paychecks).
Being competent in determining how design is going to be understood and used by users IS being competent at design.
There is a massive amount of bad design out there — made by designers. There is a large amount of bad software implementations. By programmers. And awful chairs, food, and ...
I'm not sure how that is relevant. Pulling up someone's unrelated comments because you disagree with the current discussion is discouraged at best.
You sound like someone purchasing a new ThinkPad and
"Why they added a camera bump? Sticking out of display lid. A thing nobody ask for".
"Why the made the base flat. But removed the rounded palm rest? Adding a sharp corner."
"Why the removed the dent which allowed to open the display lid, which didn't protruded out of the device?"
PS: I'm frustrated about the new ThinkPads with a camera bump sticking out of the display. Everybody hates camera bumps. The display lid is broad and provides much space for adding multiple cameras, microphones and sensors of all kind. I know...this topic is about software UI. The change for the sake of the change itself is not beneficial.
Out of all the things, you brought up Comic Sans, which is really hard to defend other than ironic use cases and no, there's no proof either it helps dyslexia. Even if it does, there are also better alternatives in the accessibility space.
How many designer friends do you have? Do you know what they do daily? We know your preconception that regardless of company size and product they are just counting beans.
> which is really hard to defend
Can you please tell me your thoughts on how it is "hard to defend"?
My thoughts: How can designers criticize the use of Comic Sans? If users use it where it's connotations (childlike, casual) are appropriate, such as birthday parties, and love it, who are designers to comment on it? I find this indefensible, as if design sensibilities have a foundation very much like mathematics or physics and there is a clearly Universal litmus test of good design and bad design. There isn't. In fact, arbitrary mores of fashion such as "Comic Sans is uncool" are the very tell that design has foundations as strong as a piece of string in the wind. The disdain for Comic Sans reeks of elitism, where designers gatekeep "good taste" based on arbitrary conventions.
Designers don't critize Comic Sans's usage when it's appropriate. It's when it's not. Like a funeral service's signage. Or a lawyer. And the massive amount of such objectively wrong usage in the wild is where you see designers crying about it.
Sure, but then why pick on Comic Sans? Lots of fonts get used inappropriately.
It's just the most common example, as thanks to Microsoft it comes preinstalled on just about any computer. Given the typically short list of fonts to pick from, many people will (would?) pick Comic Sans when they want their text to look a bit 'different'.
However, I do agree that making fun of people picking the wrong font is a bit elitist. At least Comic Sans is easy to read, so one could do worse.
I'm not sure if complaining about using a jaunty font on a WWII death row cell door explaining how many Jews passed through that cell is elitist at all. Real example. Using comic sans there is tone deaf at best.
Of course comic sans specifically has turned into a bit of a meme so now you'll see all sorts of people complaining about it getting used anywhere, which is a lot sillier, but still not elitist I don't think.
I went to look at Comic Sans to make sure I remember it correctly. The problem with it is not that it is used inappropriately. Indeed, fonts are like actors, they have a personality, and there could be a miscast. The problem with Comic Sans is that it is not a good actor. There is no role for it. It is like a bad piece of music; there is no occasion where it is welcome. Or, maybe, a very special role: an example of a bad font for studying purposes. I don't know why it is that and am not ready to write a thesis on it, but the impression is very distinct.
Nobody cares about using comic sans for a children's party, are you making a straw man argument?
> ...good design and bad design. There isn't.
It's called good taste. It's not science of course, good design is organic, it evolves, it converges. See carcinisation.
> The disdain for Comic Sans reeks of elitism, where designers gatekeep "good taste" based on arbitrary conventions.
Kinda true, get over it. Trust the people with good taste and if you want to do great, pay them to do this work for you.
But if you have an uncanny love affair with Comic Sans, no force in the Universe can stop you, have fun with it, you are free to ignore everybody.
Comic Sans has an excellent, unironic, track record as an assistive tool for young kids struggling with dyslexia.
You can do better. This was the first Google result: https://dyslexiefont.com/en/
But there are plenty more. Why settle on the worst one?
Maybe because it’s that Comic sans is widely available and preinstalled on many systems as a „good enough“ option while others are very costly very quickly
Most designers don't do that, and are plenty overworked in most organizations that they don't have time to gratuitously fiddle with new UI trends anyways. In fact, these kind of things usually come from non-designer VPs or SVPs who are trying to "spice" up the product much to the chagrin of designers on staff (I'm married to a UXD and this comes up often).
Designer right now value aesthetics over usability. If your design starts out from the question "how do we make this more user friendly", you will arrive at a totally different answer than when you ask "how do we make this look like everything else, but also stand out".
Aesthetics are essentially worthless for a user interface and should always be a secondary concern. But clearly designers have elevated aesthetics over usability, hence the numerous and constant redesigns of everything.
If you care about usability you know that a redesign necessarily comes at a great cost, since you are breaking many of the mental connections of your users. It is only justifiable if there is some serious gain by doing that.
> Aesthetics are essentially worthless for a user interface and should always be a secondary concern.
That is one of my random thoughts: Windows could have kept the Windows 95 look and been perfectly usable. Sure there might have been a need for certain UI tweaks, but for most office/home use there was no reason to change it.
The whole "let's make it friendly" is annoying. If it's a tool make it practical. If you need to write a manual because of that, then please, go right a head and do that.
The problem is that design tends to be driven by the marketing department...