[nbzso]

I am reading all this Figma talk in utter disbelief. Actually in my view Sketch never had a chance to replace Illustrator or Affinity Designer. Figma? For collaboration if use case is demanding it may be. But suddenly UI design field is filled with decorators doing boxes with drop shadow but having "Designer"opinions. May be I am in mostly silent minority of professionals that don't search and prize tools over essential skills. As a designer your work must be detached of workflow sentiments. Tools are tools. Nothing more. I can make a great UI with Inkscape any day I want. I can implement and test it in pure HTML/CSS prototype. So what? On Apple and cloud computing in general. I like owning things, call me old-fashioned, boomer, or whatever. When I own a piece of software, I can use it without someone logging my mouse and keyboard, without fear of losing internet connection. Is this a small thing to behold?

[lekevicius]

That's quite a rant, so I'll pick out probably the core message:

    As a designer your work must be detached of workflow sentiments. Tools are tools. Nothing more. I can make a great UI with Inkscape any day I want.

As software development is changing, UI design tools are changing. Inkscape has no concept of Symbols or Auto-layout. Sure, you CAN establish a design system in Inkscape, but it will be mostly copy-paste and lots of resizing.

Figma takes this a step further. Design components can be connected to JS components using Storybooks. Localization can be automatically applied to designs, and elements will automatically adjust because of a powerful, flexbox-like auto-layout.

Sure, you CAN make the same design using Inkscape. But Figma enables previously impossible workflows and makes the end result -- user experience with product -- better.

[nbzso]

Please, don't be so quick on the trigger.:) The core message is: Tools are tools. Nothing more. Actually I have been around enough to design and implement pixel perfect designs using Macromedia Fireworks - the originator of the idea of symbols. Figma enables collaborative implementation and in this use case I will consider using it. But the prevalent idea in current moment is that Figma is universal cure of a big problem, a tool to end all tools. Which is not. The biggest problem for me is the lack of originality and deep visual identity in UI design in general. We have powerful computers that can play 4k video games but UI design is boring boxes and most important thing for designers is to collaborate online.

[horsawlarway]

> We have powerful computers that can play 4k video games but UI design is boring boxes and most important thing for designers is to collaborate online.

I think the hidden truth here is that "boring boxes" solve most problems pretty damn well.

Unless your product is literally art/design, then you don't need anything custom, and boring boxes are probably the correct choice.

There is some wiggle room here - It's easier to attract customers with pretty designs, and you can make it easier to onboard a new user with some nice effects and design flourishes. But if you go overboard you differentiate yourself too much and make your product much harder to reason about and interact with.

As a user trying to get value out of a product I mostly don't care what it looks like. I do care a lot if slow animations or videos keep getting in my way. Nice the first time, fucking miserable on the hundred and first.

[nbzso]

Again quick. From what I read from you I get a feeling that you are not a designer. Professional design has balance and is build upon technical and UX understanding and proper testing. Boxes can be more than fonts with borders and background colours. And actually when done right emotional impact is rewarding for UX. A good design must have dimensions (visceral, behavioural and reflective level). You can check Donald Norman book: Emotional design. Highly recommend.

[horsawlarway]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think your misapplying some of his advice.

Funnily enough, I've read Emotional Design, It's been a long time (I think it was back in like 2006/2007) but my memory is that most of the focus of the book was on the design of physical objects. I don't really think website design has the same freedom. It doesn't invalidate all of his topics, but it certainly limits how they apply.

But there's a different angle here that I'd ask you to consider - Over the last 20 years, websites are eating up interactions that used to be conversations.

You might have walked to a bank and talked to a teller - Now you use their website.

You might have driven to home depot and asked a store associate a question - now you shop online.

You might have gone to blockbuster and rented a movie from the clerk - Now you browse netflix.

You might have gone to the post office to get some mail - Now that content is in an email instead.

Each of those interactions was just a conversation, literally just sounds coming out of a mouth, but they all achieved useful side effects. While you might have a pleasant chat every now and then, the goal was not reflective/emotional investment. The goal was the utility provided by the service.

I think approaching the design of a site with the goal of evoking an emotional or visceral reaction (ESPECIALLY from the literal appearance of the site) is actually turning the advice of the book on it's head - Put the user first!

If I'm interacting with your site to achieve a useful side effect, whether that's order an item, get the news, see my mail, deposit a check, watch a show, etc - Then my emotional reaction is heavily biased towards how well and how quickly I can achieve my goal. My emotions don't care a flying fuck whether your button is red/blue/green or if your gray is #d3d3d3 or #878787. And I certainly don't want to have to navigate a crazy custom design, just like I don't want to hit a detour while driving home - even if it happens to be scenic.

I do care, a whole lot, about consistently easy to use services, with a low barrier to entry. On the web, that mostly means boring boxes.

---

As a thought experiment, I'm sure you've been to the DMV before (I'm not actually, you might not be US based, but you probably have an equivalent).

Ever had that DMV trip that took 3 hours waiting in line before finally getting seen?

Not happy were you?

Ever had that DMV trip where it was basically empty and you got seen immediately?

I bet you felt thrilled. (probably an overstatement, but at least pleasantly surprised)

It's the same building, same carpets, floors, columns, windows, roof. The only change was how quickly and efficiently you accomplished the goal you had. But your emotional responses were miles apart.

Apply that to websites. I don't want to be looking at my bank's website - I do it because I need to move money or use their services. Make that the priority. Make it with boring, easy to use boxes, and I will love it.

Bury it in menus, or add 10 clicks because "that page looks a little cramped" and I will not be happy.

[madeofpalk]

> Tools are tools. Nothing more.

A screwdriver and an electrict drill are both tools.

[specialist]

I used to be a CADD jockey. Taught 100s of people. Did a lot of 3rd party tooling.

CADD is a 800lb angry gorilla sitting between you and your design.

Yes, it's a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. And, sometimes it's nice when the tool doesn't fight you every step of the journey.

I imagine the same is true for graphic design.