Style guides, API references etc. often indicate best practices regarding how these are meant to be used and, if you have a well-supported widget toolkit, a lot of these things even happen automatically. This is why a lot of apps are accidentally usable even if no #accessibility considerations were ever deliberately made.
The visual side of things is harder, but requires a similar early call on accessible color combinations when you're locking in your branding and design. This is where a lot of designers feel their style's being cramped because they're trying to make a Van Gogh painting rather than a usable UI. At the end of the day, a user interface is meant for the user to interface with the product, not for a user to ooh and ahh at the pwetty colors you stuck intheirface. Easy mistake to make, but now you know, alright?
Discussion
Loading...
Discussion
This is where I'm often told that a product needs to stand out, that it needs to be eye-catching, visually separate itself from the rest. Maybe that's true, I can't judge that, nor do I have the background, or senses, to properly refute or dispute that. I do have a viewpoint on this, though, and it is thus:
How helpful is your eye-catching, outstanding, visually separate design if through its very presence, users can't actually get the task done they're paying for the product to complete? Are you truly so uncertain about your product's capabilities that you need to "trick" a user into staying around by throwing pwetty pictures at them? Does nobody realize how pitiful that is?
For this and more viewpoints that often go unseen, hit me up at https://youtube.com/@ViewpointUnseen 😜 #rant
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled