I'm focusing on the fact that I think the one on the right is style over function. Based on the jquery hiding the select box and displaying a list of spans (or something similar, depending how you go about it). Either way, the original select box is mutated all for a simple change of aesthetic.
So my question is focused on the designed/engineered implementation of the select box. I was interested if anyone would bring this up or agree/disagree.
On principal, I see this as the equivalent of printing a white piece of paper with a black background. Thoughts?
That justification is more acceptable, but still a poor excuse (which doesn't sound like your fault), and if anything highlights the problem with the focus of user-centered design.
I'm sure you'd agree, design isn't a democracy. Clearly, your users are wrong.
"I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like."
My point still stands. Just because Apple give you the choice to pinch and zoom doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
The fact you already have a mobile site but choose not to put it to its full use baffles me even further.
Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page. Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that."
That's your main reason for not having a mobile site?
In terms of usability, zooming in on a mobile device to click on a website designed for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible experience.
A bunch of CSS3 animations whizzing around the page is the last thing we need. (Though it's likely to happen as people go crazy with new capabilities).
But with a bit of constraint these can be used to add value, simply the difference between good and bad design.
Simple HTML markup with a bit of CSS position would be a huge step up from flat jpegs, particularly as far as type is concerned.
I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.
> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.
If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.
Have Google really built Google+ out of a real human need/problem? I don't think so.
I'm not excusing Facebook and how they make money today. These aren't the same motives that influenced their reason for being, which were a lot more focused on people and universities.
There's general misrepresentation throughout this conversation and the article that design is merely a veneer that you either choose to implement or not at some point.
Design is about solving problems, and a design led company/individual adopts a certain mind frame that often tends to contrast that of the engineer.
If you're designing a consumer product and your engineered concept works so well that you can actually consider whether or not you 'design' it, well, lucky you.
Who decided that the number of hipsters in a concentrated area correlate with successful tech companies?
These 'cool', 'creative' pockets within cities such as San Francisco, London and Berlin that the article suggest as a vital ingredient for developing the perfect startup environment are merely the result of artists after cheap spaces to work, exhibit and live.
After time, cool-hunters follow, prices go up, locals are pushed out, companies move in.
London, particularly the East, is full of areas such as this.
I don't see why a hover state should always dictate a link. Especially considering this case with multiple clickable areas within the link div. (Such as Tweet, date, delete etc). The hover is subtle and merely used to guide the users eye along the row to the 'vote' link. Maybe the main link needs an underline to remove any possible chance of confusion here.
Sure, I could position the clickable links over a linked area, but it'd be a usability nightmare with a constant pointer in link state.
I'll give it to you on your first point though, the contrast on the text is slightly low.