An even-handed assessment of the benefits and dangers of machine learning.
This ever-growing curated collection of interface patterns on CodePen is a reliable source of inspiration.
On Ev’s blog, Marcin goes into great detail on theming an interface using CSS custom properties, SVG, HSL, and a smattering of CSS filters.
I was kind of amazed that all of this could happen via CSS and CSS alone: the colours, the transitions, the vectors, and even the images.
Chris weighs up the ethical implications of Google Duplex:
The social hacking that could be accomplished is mind-boggling. For this reason, I expect that having human-sounding narrow AI will be illegal someday. The Duplex demo is a moment of cultural clarity, where it first dawned on us that we can do it, but with only a few exceptions, we shouldn’t.
But he also offers alternatives for designing systems like this:
- Provide disclosure, and
- Design a hot signal:
…design the interface so that it is unmistakeable that it is synthetic. This way, even if the listener missed or misunderstood the disclosure, there is an ongoing signal that reinforces the idea. As designer Ben Sauer puts it, make it “Humane, not human.”
If you’re looking for an accessible standalone autocomplete script, this one from GDS looks very good (similar to Lea’s awesomplete).
It’s ironic, isn’t it? Design is more important and respected than ever, which means we have more agency to affect change. But at the same time, our priorities have been subverted, pushed towards corporate benefit over human benefit. It’s hard to reconcile those things.
I love this analogy and I love this approach—starting with the simplest possible thing and building up from there. This article talks about taking that approach for UI design, but it’s pretty much the same thing I talk about for development in Resilient Web Design.
As Shakespeare once didn’t say, progressive enhancement by any other name would smell as sweet.
dialogs are here.
Making low effort/high impact changes to interfaces.
This reminds me of something we talk about at Clearleft a lot called “tiny lessons”—it’s the idea that insights and learnings don’t always have to be big and groundbreaking; there’s a disproportionate value in sharing the small little things you learn along the way.
Suggestions for small interface tweaks.
Ana goes into exhaustive detail on all the differences in the shadow DOM and styling of
input type="range" across browsers.
I’m totally fine with browsers providing different styling for complex UI elements like this, but I wish they’d at least provide a consistent internal structure and therefore a consistent way of over-riding the default styles. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to abandon native elements like this in favour building their own UI components from scratch—the kind of over-engineering that inevitably ends up being under-engineered.
This 1993 article by Mark Weiser is relevant to our world today.
Take intelligent agents. The idea, as near as I can tell, is that the ideal computer should be like a human being, only more obedient. Anything so insidiously appealing should immediately give pause. Why should a computer be anything like a human being? Are airplanes like birds, typewriters like pens, alphabets like mouths, cars like horses? Are human interactions so free of trouble, misunderstanding, and ambiguity that they represent a desirable computer interface goal? Further, it takes a lot of time and attention to build and maintain a smoothly running team of people, even a pair of people. A computer I need to talk to, give commands to, or have a relationship with (much less be intimate with), is a computer that is too much the center of attention.
When you start a redesign process for a company, it’s very easy to briefly look at all their products (apps, websites, newsletters, etc) and first of all make fun of how bad it all looks, and then design this one single design system for everything. However, once you start diving into why those decisions were made, they often reveal local knowledge that your design system doesn’t solve.
In this talk transcript, Rune Madsen enumerates the reasons for his informed scepticism towards design systems:
- The first concern, which is also the main argument of this talk, is that humans – especially designers and engineers – are obsessed with creating systems of order. This is not really driven by a demand from users, so they often tend to benefit the designer, not the user.
- My second concern relates to what I believe design systems is doing to our digital experience. We’ve always had trends in graphic design (Swiss design, Flat UI, etc), but I’m getting increasingly concerned that this broad adoption of design systems is creating a design monoculture that really narrows the idea of what digital products can be.
- My third concern is that with all this talk about design systems, there’s very little talk about the real problem in digital design, which is processes and tools. Designers love making design manuals, but any design system will completely and utterly fail if it doesn’t help people in the organization produce faster and better products.
Brad always said that carousels were way to stop people beating each other up in meetings. I like the way Heydon puts it:
Carousels (or ‘content sliders’) are like men. They are not literally all bad — some are even helpful and considerate. But I don’t trust anyone unwilling to acknowledge a glaring pattern of awfulness. Also like men, I appreciate that many of you would rather just avoid dealing with carousels, but often don’t have the choice. Hence this article.
A gallery of empty UIs. It reminds me of those galleries of clever 404 pages. Next step: a gallery of witty offline pages.
A collection of publicly available design systems, pattern libraries, and interface guidelines.