All materials have a grain, whether wood or pixels, and that grain suggests the best way to work. Go with the grain and one will find sturdiness combined with tremendous flexibility—a natural and exciting give that grounds decisions and excites with possibilities. Work against the grain and the work becomes precarious, difficult, and fragile. Instead of the elegant bending that software requires to adjust to different screens, uses, and situations, the work breaks because it can not adapt.
A frontend designer (who may also go by UI developer, client-side developer, UI engineer, design engineer, frontend architect, designer/developer, prototyper, unicorn, or Bo Jackson) lives in a sort of purgatory between worlds
This is my life. I am often shoe-horned into the role of pure developer, when in reality I’m a designer that develops for the front end. Organizations that I’ve worked with in the past tend to separate the two, and this puts me in the precarious position of having to choose between them. Or those who don’t understand my skill set tend to take me with them when they need a technically minded individual to interpret and discuss a topic.
While some of this organizational separation may be justified, creating a division between designers and frontend developers is an absolutely terrible idea.
He mentions how he thinks that front end designers are particularly well-suited to bridge the divide between design and development and I couldn’t agree more. It’s a key skill set in any organization that creates and designs user interfaces.
I went to Chicago Camps UX Camp last weekend and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. From the opening keynote right on through to the final session discussing content modeling, the day was packed with information that I can bring back to my freelance work and primary job. It was a full 14 hours of driving and learning that was rather tiring, enlightening, and everything in between.
One particular talk stood out in my mind as one that I need to research, learn, and discuss with my larger team to see if implementing the methods in any sense would work for us.
Making products that customers love is hard. So giving yourself 1 week to do it sounds crazy.
But many companies spend months or years building products only to learn that their customers don’t want it. Google’s Design Sprint solves this problem by focusing a cross-disciplinary team on a clearly defined problem, empowering them to generate many creative ideas, and ensuring they are building the right product by putting a prototype in front of customers in just 5 days.
The 45 minute session was focused primarily on facilitation rather than process, but I am intrigued.
The digital media world is in the process of dramatic change. For years, the Internet has been about web sites and browser-based experiences, and the systems that drove those sites generally matched those experiences. But now, the portable world is upon us and it is formidable. With the growing need and ability to be portable comes tremendous opportunity for content providers. But it also requires substantial changes to their thinking and their systems. It requires distribution platforms, API’s and other ways to get the content to where it needs to be. But having an API is not enough. In order for content providers to take full advantage of these new platforms, they will need to, first and foremost, embrace one simple philosophy: COPE.
Oh, goodness me, I could watch these highlights for hours. This game was fun from…almost start to…almost finish. Truly a dominating effort that was a little bit skewed by garbage time and that brilliant first drive that MSU put together.
Hayek is saying that his big book restating some “old truths” was necessary in 1959 because making the case for liberalism is a Sisyphean task. If the old truths are not updated for each new age, they will slip from our grasp and lose our allegiance. The terms in which those truths have been couched will become hollow, potted mottoes, will fail to galvanize, inspire, and move us. The old truths will remain truths, but they’ll be dismissed and neglected as mere dogma, noise. And the liberal, open society will again face a crisis of faith.
This won’t be an exercise in narrowly sectarian ideology or political dogma. It can’t be. The fact that liberalism has become rote is central to our problem. Academic left-liberalism is doggedly utopian—and stale. Democratic Party liberalism is incoherent—and stale. Orthodox libertarianism is dogmatically blinkered—and stale. The “classical liberalism” of conservative-libertarian fusionism is phony—and stale. Each of our legacy liberalisms is, in its own way, corrupt. It’s all part of our pitted, pocked, cracked and creaking liberal cultural infrastructure. It doesn’t help to replace rotten wood with rotten wood, rusty pipe with rusty pipe. Hayek himself told us we can’t fix it with Hayek.
If this is too much of a quote, I’ll reduce it down, but what an important message.
The common view is that frameworks make it easier to manage the complexity of your code: the framework abstracts away all the fussy implementation details with techniques like virtual DOM diffing. But that’s not really true. At best, frameworks move the complexity around, away from code that you had to write and into code you didn’t.
Instead, the reason that ideas like React are so wildly and deservedly successful is that they make it easier to manage the complexity of your concepts. Frameworks are primarily a tool for structuring your thoughts, not your code.