I'm unsure why Github needs to be simplified and I certainly don't want to see it simplified at the expense of functionality, as is shown in this article. I can't stand this constant drive to simplify everything, which is more and more plaguing software.
Simple does not have to mean featureless. Essentially equating lack of ease with a UI as stupidity is somewhat rude, but worse it's short sighted. Many people have spoken recently about the Github UI - it's much better than what came before in that world, but it can be better, as I'm sure they'd admit.
Your "constant drive to simplify" is better understood as a constant drive to improve. Local maxima are dangerously beguiling, we should always question.
Very, very true. Good design can be simple and powerful. However, sadly - it often does mean featureless and this link is a perfect example.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Both my posts were just downvoted. If you don't agree, fair enough - but please tell me why rather than just downvoting and running.
@jkochris, Fair enough. My first post was quick to attack (and I have now edited this to show my points in a calmer manner) however I'm unsure why my second post was downvoted as it was - as far as I'm concerned - a perfectly legitimate response.
As for not reading the article, I can assure you that I did. I am simply sick of quality software being ruined. I think the perfect example of this is the Gnome desktop, which is being trashed by designers who are removing key features and functionality - all in the name of simplifying and making things look "elegant" and "beautiful". There are many more cases of this, both commercially (Windows 8 may be the latest example, soon enough) and in the open-source world.
To provide healthy criticism, I think the redesign suggested ignores one thing - the social experience.
In the redesign, the significance of project is diminished and the page feels more like a directory listing. This is IMHO what bitbucket and the rest are doing wrong; and what Github does right.
I understand the need for simplification - that's great, just perhaps take into account the fact that for people working on a repository - it is not just a listing of files but an experience of working on a project. I feel that Github takes care to blur the boundary between the two.
I've been trying to explain to people lately how to use Github and every time I tell them to go to "Commits" they get totally lost. Everything is the same grey bland, there are a total of about 7 navigation bars, and a lot of clutter. The fact that they get lost is a clear sign that something is very wrong.
This design is obviously a recognition of the problems and a suggestion of what could be. It's not 100% right but it illustrates the possibilities.
I'm very confident that the guys at GH know this though and I'm looking forward to what they come up with.
Removing the repository URL is a terrible thing. That is a key piece of information that anyone trying to get started with a project needs to know. Maybe it could be hidden after you've pulled but it needs to be there in the beginning, at least.
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 33.4 ms ] threadYour "constant drive to simplify" is better understood as a constant drive to improve. Local maxima are dangerously beguiling, we should always question.
Very, very true. Good design can be simple and powerful. However, sadly - it often does mean featureless and this link is a perfect example.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Both my posts were just downvoted. If you don't agree, fair enough - but please tell me why rather than just downvoting and running.
As for not reading the article, I can assure you that I did. I am simply sick of quality software being ruined. I think the perfect example of this is the Gnome desktop, which is being trashed by designers who are removing key features and functionality - all in the name of simplifying and making things look "elegant" and "beautiful". There are many more cases of this, both commercially (Windows 8 may be the latest example, soon enough) and in the open-source world.
The recent post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3814508 has many readers commenting on their preference for a bit less clutter.
In the redesign, the significance of project is diminished and the page feels more like a directory listing. This is IMHO what bitbucket and the rest are doing wrong; and what Github does right.
I understand the need for simplification - that's great, just perhaps take into account the fact that for people working on a repository - it is not just a listing of files but an experience of working on a project. I feel that Github takes care to blur the boundary between the two.
This design is obviously a recognition of the problems and a suggestion of what could be. It's not 100% right but it illustrates the possibilities.
I'm very confident that the guys at GH know this though and I'm looking forward to what they come up with.