4 ms·

It's a cross between WP and Android. It's a very strange feeling when you realise you could do a better job at UX design then a multi-billion company.

masklinn 13y ago
> It's a cross between WP and Android. With a bunch of WebOS thrown in, e.g. the task switcher.
rimantas 13y ago
Then why don't you do it? Redesigning the entire OS is a bit more complex than proclaiming that it is similar to something and you can do it better.
- _progger_ 13y ago
  My point is that you could expect such an obvious decision as making a mix of UX styles of two other competing platforms to be executed a bit better.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Design always looks easier than it really is. Even the most shanzhai designers must work very hard to copy a design given other constraints (cost) they are limited by. And the imitation often misses many details.
mattermill 13y ago
Unfortunately, not many others would be willing to put much faith in someone with the grammar of a 6th grader to do a better job at UX design than a multi-billion dollar company.
- infinitone 13y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
  - benaiah 13y ago
    It's actually not an ad hominem. A firm grasp of language, grammar, and communication is actually recognized, albeit informally, to be a good signal of technical skill and design effectiveness. If he can't refine his linguistic communication well enough to convey such a simple sentence, how can he be expected to refine his visual communication (i.e., UX design) well enough to surpass one of the leading UX teams in the industry? There are further reasons it's not an ad hominem - I recommend you read The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy [1]. I don't mean to criticize - I made the same mistake until recently, so I offer the article in a spirit of goodwill, not superiority. [1]: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
    - gurkendoktor 13y ago
      I'm not saying that it is an ad hominem, but I've read through the page and I think the connection between grammar and design skills is a red herring. The page considers this an ad hominem too, even though having a grasp of logic is clearly important for making A's statement: A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true." Maybe I'm not seeing the difference though (not a native speaker, just curious).
      - benaiah 13y ago
        As I've mentioned in another comment I just posted (after your comment, that is), it's not an ad hominem regardless of whether the "poor grammar -> poor design" argument holds, because there is an argument present, not a simple dismissal of everything he has to say. It might be wrong, but it's still a valid argument, and not an ad hominem. The example you show instead points to an attribute of the speaker to imply that what he says is categorically untrue, regardless of whether it's relevant or not. In this case, an attribute of the speaker is used to refute a specific argument of his (that he is such a demigod of UX design that he can design better than any of the top teams in the industry), while still allowing him to participate in the debate. No argument can be made connecting someone's poor grasp of logic to the taxonomy of weasels, but an argument can be made connecting someone's poor grasp of grammar to that same person's ability to design.

masklinn 13y ago

> It's a cross between WP and Android. With a bunch of WebOS thrown in, e.g. the task switcher.

rimantas 13y ago

Then why don't you do it? Redesigning the entire OS is a bit more complex than proclaiming that it is similar to something and you can do it better.

_progger_ 13y ago
My point is that you could expect such an obvious decision as making a mix of UX styles of two other competing platforms to be executed a bit better.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Design always looks easier than it really is. Even the most shanzhai designers must work very hard to copy a design given other constraints (cost) they are limited by. And the imitation often misses many details.

mattermill 13y ago

Unfortunately, not many others would be willing to put much faith in someone with the grammar of a 6th grader to do a better job at UX design than a multi-billion dollar company.

infinitone 13y ago
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
- benaiah 13y ago
  It's actually not an ad hominem. A firm grasp of language, grammar, and communication is actually recognized, albeit informally, to be a good signal of technical skill and design effectiveness. If he can't refine his linguistic communication well enough to convey such a simple sentence, how can he be expected to refine his visual communication (i.e., UX design) well enough to surpass one of the leading UX teams in the industry? There are further reasons it's not an ad hominem - I recommend you read The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy [1]. I don't mean to criticize - I made the same mistake until recently, so I offer the article in a spirit of goodwill, not superiority. [1]: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
  - gurkendoktor 13y ago
    I'm not saying that it is an ad hominem, but I've read through the page and I think the connection between grammar and design skills is a red herring. The page considers this an ad hominem too, even though having a grasp of logic is clearly important for making A's statement: A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal." B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true." Maybe I'm not seeing the difference though (not a native speaker, just curious).
    - benaiah 13y ago
      As I've mentioned in another comment I just posted (after your comment, that is), it's not an ad hominem regardless of whether the "poor grammar -> poor design" argument holds, because there is an argument present, not a simple dismissal of everything he has to say. It might be wrong, but it's still a valid argument, and not an ad hominem. The example you show instead points to an attribute of the speaker to imply that what he says is categorically untrue, regardless of whether it's relevant or not. In this case, an attribute of the speaker is used to refute a specific argument of his (that he is such a demigod of UX design that he can design better than any of the top teams in the industry), while still allowing him to participate in the debate. No argument can be made connecting someone's poor grasp of logic to the taxonomy of weasels, but an argument can be made connecting someone's poor grasp of grammar to that same person's ability to design.