[HN Gopher] Open Source Design
___________________________________________________________________
Open Source Design
Author : pabs3
Score : 108 points
Date : 2022-03-16 08:48 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (opensourcedesign.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (opensourcedesign.net)
| krm01 wrote:
| Also check out https://openby.design. Where complete designs are
| crafted and made open source. Can be used for both open source
| software projects as well as closed/commercial applications.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Anything new on here from a year ago? Some discussion then:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25208927
| simulo wrote:
| Not much as far as I am concerned, though the then-mentioned
| figma-like penpot.app/ keeps improving continously!
| marc_io wrote:
| Just a little nitpick: I got curious why they choose a brush to
| represent the project. The icon is very related to art and
| illustration, but very poor in representing the scope of the
| project. Maybe something more... designed?
| latexr wrote:
| > why they choose a brush to represent the project.
|
| A brush can be a tool for design; graphic design was analog
| before it was digital. The brush is at a particular
| orientation, reminiscent of a person looking forward. The human
| aspect is part of their focus, so the logo fits the dual
| meaning.
| simulo wrote:
| I am active on opensource design since several years. Back when
| we created the logo we had many discussions what would
| represent design well. Problem is that design often means
| something rather abstract and it easily leads to boxes and/or
| arrows to signify "process" or "concepts" etc. If I remember
| correctly I would have preferred a pencil but, admittingly, it
| has a less recognizable shape in the flat-shapes-design of
| today's icons.
| wingerlang wrote:
| I think it works nicely with this logo https://opensource.org/
| lekevicius wrote:
| My experience with trying to help open-source projects with
| design has been quite bad. Projects that most need design help
| are usually not sponsored by a company, a true contributor
| project. Design is opinionated, and for many projects it can be
| hard to find consensus. Much easier to find consensus around
| adding features.
|
| Two very different examples: Blender and Audacity (pre-
| acquisition). Blender was able to pull off something spectacular
| with 2.8, a full rethink of UI, controls, even app structure. But
| Blender is basically a company, with full-time employees, it's
| just that their output is open-source. Audacity, as far as I
| know, didn't have full-time employees. And as it grew in
| features, it never had any significant UI cleanup. Menus just
| grew, icons were tacked on. It might change now that they have
| been acquired.
| danbolt wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if UI/UX passes on open-source tools would
| be better with very explicit "experimental forks" that keep
| with upstream when they can. Over time, the successful fork
| starts to get more traffic from regular users and re-merges. It
| might save time compared to long debates without much agenda.
| indigochill wrote:
| I'm fairly firmly of this opinion (though I only have a
| little experience working on large open-source projects).
| Sure, there can be productivity loss in developing in
| parallel vs developing a consensus, but nothing highlights
| the strengths and weaknesses of a design like actually
| implementing and using it.
| simulo wrote:
| The challenge for end-user focussed design is that it is
| very resource intensive to develop parallel UIs (and for
| many devs they are the least fun thing to implement),
| whereas it is not that much of a problem to add an
| additional parameter to a command line program.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Blender also used to be closed source. Blender foundation had
| to crowdfund the source code to make it open. I was already
| using Blender in 1998 when it went freemium and it was already
| quite evolved, I didn't feel like the UI was bad compared to
| 3DS Max or Lightwave.
| loquisgon wrote:
| Design can mean many things. I am a backend developer and we also
| design, but our designs are for abstract structures with certain
| qualities required for humans, machines, and ilities. I thought
| that this might be related to backend design. I looked into the
| website looking for a definition of what hey mean by "design". I
| did not spend a lot of time but I could not find it. I guess they
| are talking about UX design. Then suddenly I am not so
| interested. Not because I feel that UX design is not interesting;
| it is extremely important. But I think we also need to talk about
| backend design so much more.
| Osiris wrote:
| > Design can mean many things.
|
| I'm an architect and to me design definitely means a very
| different thing than just how the UI looks, think system
| design.
|
| But in this case they are "a group of designers" specifically
| talking about UI design.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It's about UI and UX design. When people mix both, they usually
| mean "UI only, but we have to talk about UX", but this one
| seems honestly aimed at both.
| milad_nazari wrote:
| What do you guys think of the Carbon Design System[1]?
|
| It's an open source design system created and maintained by IBM,
| with official implementations in React, vanilla JS and web
| components and community implementations for Angular, Vue and
| Svelte.
|
| Are there people using it in production, or for serious side
| projects?
|
| [1] https://carbondesignsystem.com/
| ishitatsuyuki wrote:
| Carbon is absolutely amazing. They are using a very flat style
| in pursuit of a modern corporate brand, just like a lot of
| other tech companies today, but the design also incorporates a
| lot of traditional and familiar elements. It's a rare instance
| of flat UI that does not feel mobile oriented and half assed on
| desktop.
|
| Carbon components are also the most accessible component set I
| have seen, and they go through great lengths doing automated
| and manual accessibility testing.
|
| The library though, is a bit lackluster. It's tailored for
| IBM's internal need, and is still a bit far from a complete
| framework. So you need to be prepared to write some CSS as well
| as designing your own components when you need one.
| kodah wrote:
| I used it in Svelte for a desktop app I wrote. It was okay.
| Like a lot of design frameworks I found it to be pretty rigid.
| However, take what I say with a grain of salt. I really like
| CSS frameworks like Tailwind that I can combine with something
| like Svelte.
| RussianCow wrote:
| This is the first I'm hearing of it, but my initial impression
| is pretty poor given that there is no loading indicator when
| you click any link on the website, so if a page takes a while
| to load, there is absolutely no indication that anything is
| happening. I know it's petty, but that doesn't set a good tone
| for the rest of the design system.
| OJFord wrote:
| Whether or not the docs site uses them itself, there are two:
|
| https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/loading/usage/
|
| https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/inline-
| loading/usa...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-16 23:01 UTC)