Every few weeks, an article comes along that blows everything else out of the water. It’s so on point and so true that its detractors can’t help but spread hate about it and, unknowingly, essentially end up marketing it to everyone around them who will listen. And so it spreads like wildfire.
Two months ago it was Marco Arment’s article about the downgrade in Apple’s software, which Arment cowardly apologized for, claimed he regretted posting it, feared that it would damage his relationship with Apple, and even went as far as changing key portions of the original text in his article.
This month’s article comes in a brilliant four-part series written by Eli Schiff on… the downgrade in Apple’s software. Except this time, no one backs down from their arguments. Schiff doesn’t backpedal from his criticisms like Arment does. Schiff lays it out like it is. Blatantly. Without apology. And for that alone, he has my deepest respect.
Here is the full series, entitled Critical Sharks:
Eli Schiff starts off at a good note and it just gets better from there:
It is a quite common in the industry to believe that there are designers who have reached a status at which they should be above criticism. For many, providing constructive criticism in the form of a redesign must be forbidden because it calls into question the perfection of prominent design firms and designers, and from there it is only a slippery slope before anyone might have their work criticized.
The really good stuff starts around part three of his series:
In order to fortify their position and divert attention away from criticism, modern minimalist apologists have amassed a whole assortment of baseless arguments for dismissing visual design issues.
Schiff captures “the apologist” with remarkable accuracy:
Thus the apologist conflates the existence or addition of features with satisfactory design. This is mistaken. The mere existence of features has little or nothing to do with the usability, effectiveness or beauty in a visual design. Features do not make design, design makes features. In and of themselves, the features are mere functionality: inaccessible and useless. Design exposes and communicates how a feature is presented and experienced by the user. Both are interrelated, but hardly the same thing.
Nowhere else has “the apologist” creature been documented such as this:
When it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that there are serious flaws in their design languages, modern minimalist apologists have nowhere to turn but to fallaciously appeal to bugs. They claim that the badly designed operating system must have been a big mistake, a bug that can be easily fixed. But that it is you, the user, who must cease with your criticism and do your part.
I’m not going to spoil any more good bits. Grab a cup of tea and enjoy.
Additional resources: