1. 11
  1.  

  2. 5

    A lot of it stemmed from my reactions to a possible screens he was designing. I’d say, hey, I’m not sure I really dig the latest comp you posted.

    And more often than not — and this is a mark of a great designer — he’d come back with already-sketched pages of same screen pictured six months, twelve months, three years, and five years from now. He gave us context behind his decisions. And almost every single time — that motherfucker — he would win the argument this way. By showing that entire context of his future vision detailed out, I could very comfortably buy into a decision that I don’t necessarily agree with 100% today, because I’ve bought into the steps needed to get to the long-term vision.

    But does that really work with design? As a designer, you don’t get to tell all of your users “you may not like this now, but it will look good in five years” and explain all of the context. Your design is judged by its current context, which apparently was not good enough for this person to like it.

    1. 2

      As with many examples of anecdote, the answer to your questions is, “sometimes.”

    2. 2

      I actually enjoyed this post, which I didnt expect. He makes aome fantastic points, and it hit home pretty quickly. We often, at work, have decisions made which are contentious, but can only get the context necessary to understand if we question it (in an attempt to understand) or eventually ask the set of decision makers for details on how they came to that decision.

      The problem with the later, is simply that they don’t typically record / remember all the discussion which frames the context (contrast to discussion in a PR), and you only get part of the story.

      Whereas, with the former it just looks like dissent.