Artists cannot design interfaces.

[KrazyHorse]

Az, I have no idea what "warp market structures" means in this context. The point is that, relative to quantity demanded at identical price points, software engineers are rarer than artists. What happens? The price of artists goes down (and the quantity demanded thus goes up) while the price of software engineers goes up (and the quantity demanded goes down). Rarity here is a relative, not an absolute.

Now, there is a secondary point, namely that there is a relatively firm ceiling on the number of software engineers that the world can produce. The great majority of people have neither the inclination nor the innate ability to become a software engineer, so these individuals are somewhat protected by their uniqueness from competition from new entrants. In the long run, if everybody had both the ability and inclination to become a software engineer AND the ability and inclination to become a graphic designer then the prices would equalize, as more people became compsci undergrads and less became graphic design undergrads.

There's no need to appeal to market inefficiency here. Merely the fact that you need to take both supply and demand (or, more simply, the ratio of quantity supplied to quantity demanded) in order to figure out where the prices go.

[BlackCat]

Try to read the thread fully.

Here it is again, bolded and red, so that you don't ****ing forget it.

My opinion, is that it is better if the designer has stronger artistic abilities if he is designing something that humans must interface with. That's my argument.

Stick to the argument next time, and Asher, you never showed me what you wanted me to address. Fool.

Well, you can paint it pink or blue, but it doesn't make it more true. It's way more important to have a sense of human nature, how they react and what crazy things they can do, than artistic sense. Another important thing is to understand the data model so you can present it and make a simple and effective UI.

Artistic input can be a plua when used to make an UI more pleasant, and thereby improve calming the working class, but often it's used as an icing on a crappy product that makes life easier for the sales department.

[-Jrabbit]

Asher's basic position, as posited by the thread title, is:

Artists cannot design interfaces.

Supply/demand arguments do not address this. Pay scales do not address this.

I can state with complete confidence that, yes, artists can design interfaces -- but in general, are only successful if they possess enough technical skill and perform necessary behavioral analysis to ensure usability. I have worked with several who are consistenly successful in this.

I think it's pretty obvious that Asher is referring to arts-only folk and, yeah, those guys tend to be pretty hopeless. But most people who are serious about working in a field develop their missing skills -- graphic designers learn some programming (or at least the basics of what can and cannot be implemented), and tech guys show growth in learning about what tends to appeal to users in graphical terms.

This is not a black/white issue. And the level of discourse here has, for the most part, been sadly shrill on both sides.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The major problem is that most arts people are trained to ignore "what the audience wants" instead of focusing on it, and UI is all about what the users want and need. The artists that are somewhat aware of the world around them aren't half bad.

[BlackCat]

Asher's basic position, as posited by the thread title, is:


Supply/demand arguments do not address this. Pay scales do not address this.

I can state with complete confidence that, yes, artists can design interfaces -- but in general, are only successful if they possess enough technical skill and perform necessary behavioral analysis to ensure usability. I have worked with several who are consistenly successful in this.

I think it's pretty obvious that Asher is referring to arts-only folk and, yeah, those guys tend to be pretty hopeless. But most people who are serious about working in a field develop their missing skills -- graphic designers learn some programming (or at least the basics of what can and cannot be implemented), and tech guys show growth in learning about what tends to appeal to users in graphical terms.

The main problem is that you can't attach arty people until late in the proces - that is after the data model is decided. Though, I'm a bit split here - the end UI must be a part of the model - who cares about a perfect model if it's impossible to implement a usefull UI ?

This is not a black/white issue. And the level of discourse here has, for the most part, been sadly shrill on both sides.

Well, it's poly, so why expect else

[KrazyHorse]

Pay scales do not address this.

They address the blatantly ridiculous claim as to pay scales made by Frosty.

[BlackCat]

The major problem is that most arts people are trained to ignore "what the audience wants" instead of focusing on it, and UI is all about what the users want and need. The artists that are somewhat aware of the world around them aren't half bad.

Well, I hope that you with "what the audience wants" means the functionality that the end user needs and not some jerk in the IT department

Writing programs isn't about linecount but about making something useful. Well, some programmers do actually write ****ty programs on purpose - lousy programs noone can understand can be a job security (VBA is a great tool for such)

[-Jrabbit]

Pay scales do not address this.

They address the blatantly ridiculous claim as to pay scales made by Frosty.

QFT. Although the stats quoted IIRC don't include his part of the world.

[Asher]

I can state with complete confidence no useful software has ever come out of Singapore.

[BlackCat]

I can state with complete confidence no useful software has ever come out of Singapore.

Asher, the canadian Ben Kenobi ... oh, wait ....

[Felch]

My opinion, is that it is better if the designer has stronger artistic abilities if he is designing something that humans must interface with. That's my argument.

This statement doesn't really mean much. What are "stronger artistic abilities?" Would that include someone who can draw really well? If I can only sketch out some ugly stick figures, am I incapable of making something a human being can interact with?

Or are you using that phrase to indicate an aesthetic sense? Are you saying that by knowing what is pleasing to the senses, you are able to make an interface that is more elegant?

Maybe you're saying that an artist has some extraordinary insight into the human condition, and that insight makes them able to produce a better user interface. While that may be a feel good argument, it's not very convincing. Psychologists are probably better qualified, and I'd wager that the classes Asher refers to were based on psychological research.

Really it's impossible to argue with the statement because it's not very clear what you're defending. Even if it were clear, I'm not sure you've got much to stand on. Old interfaces were bad because the people designing them had technological limitations, and did not make user-friendliness a priority. It's not because they weren't artists.

[-Jrabbit]

Here's my interpretation of FB's contention:
Given two otherwise identical designers, the one with "stronger artistic abilities" is better.

Not exactly a controversial contention.

[Felch]

Not controversial at all. Not really worth saying either.

[-Jrabbit]

Well, the alternative interpretations you listed are either silly or unclear, so I thought I'd be generous and go with self-evident.

[Felch]

Generosity killed the organ donor.