[ibash]

Care and craft. A lot of software engineers think that “done” means functional. And not “feels right”.

That and unless a software engineer has specifically practiced implementing pixel perfect designs from a great designer, then they don’t spot the errors. The design will feel wrong but they don’t know why.

[pxc]

'Pixel perfect' designs are stupid, qnd responsible for backwards steps in font scaling. GUIs should be reflowable, not 'pixel perfect'. Dumbass 'pixel perfect' designs are the reason you can't resize the fucking System Preferences window.

They're also shitty for accessibility. If you're significantly visually impaired but still inclined to rely on your remaining vision, you'll find that (a) macOS doesn't let you jack the fonts up big enough and (b) when you actually do get large enough text just by jacking up the scale of the whole Ui, all kinds of text fields are truncated and some windows some even fit properly on your screen.

Aligning UIs by pixel makes them worse.

[ibash]

You're arguing with yourself. "Pixel perfect" doesn't mean what you think it does.

> Pixel perfect is a design approach that aims to achieve a precise and consistent look for a design, down to the pixel level.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+pixel+perfect

[pxc]

I'm aware that 'pixel perfect' doesn't strictly mean 'totally fixed layout'. That's not really relevant here.

You can't have, for instance, consistent alignments down to the pixel level, on systems with arbitrary DPI emulation, e.g., when you set DPI manually to something other than 96 in Xorg. This is where the usual caveats for 'fractional scaling' come in (because you have to render at a higher resolution and then scale it down), why such scaling often results in blurry text, why HiDPI displays are required for the normal scaling on macOS, etc. Such changes come in part in pursuit of enabling 'pixel perfect design' on the desktop, and they suck.

Commenters on this site will frequently point out things that are apparently misaligned by a single pixel. What is their complaint, if not that the UI element in question fails to be pixel perfect?

Whether the System Preferences pane must have a fixed size in order to achieve 'pixel perfection' is perhaps debatable. That such inflexibility makes pixel alignment easier is obvious. You think Apple have some other, better reason for System Settings being completely unresizable? What is it?

[ibash]

The point was that unless an engineer has practiced implementing designs exactly, they often miss the details and don’t _see_ the details they’ve missed.

I say this as someone who used to not see the details, and then worked at a company where it was expected that we implement designs exactly. Ever since then I can’t _not_ see UI design details.

It’s like shopping for a car, once you’re biased towards a specific model you see it everywhere.