| ▲ | ninetyninenine a day ago |
| False. The human brain and eye is built to recognize foreground and background and shift focus and attention based off of blur. Thousands of years of adaptation has honed the brain and the eye to be optimized for this type of view much moreso then the simple UX you see here on HN. Not only does the blurred/frosted glass background look better but it should be clearer because that's what we've been designed to do. |
|
| ▲ | cosmotic a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't follow. What exactly has the brain been honed to do? Every single article I've read on the matter says higher contrast is more readable. The debate is over how high is 'good enough'. |
| |
| ▲ | ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-] | | Do those articles use scientific evidence? Do they measure anything quantitative or is it just a bunch of opinion. UX poses as a scientific field when really there is little evidence based research and it’s all just technical procedure and big words. Technical procedures are illusory they make you think it’s legit with a bunch of rules but to be scientific you need evidence. As technical as the rules are, a lot of it is made up bs. UX design is one of those bs concepts that litter the world and poses as legitimate. It’s like the food pyramid from the USDA that says refined carbs are the most important part of every meal. If the debate is on how much contrast then run some science. Instead UX just debates and as a result the entire field is made up conjecture. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | simianparrot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This holds true in 3D space to a _certain degree_, but here we’re looking at faux 3D projected onto a flat 2D surface where our eyes’ depth perception doesn’t work. |
| |
| ▲ | ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-] | | No we like photos with blur in the background. We prefer such photography. So who’s to say the faux surface fails? Again we need evidence based measurements which the entire UX field lacks. It’s just a bunch of made up concepts strung together with little scientific research. | | |
| ▲ | skydhash a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The blur is depth dependent, not an uniform filter. And there’s a lot of research regarding UX, under the term Human-Computer Interaction. The thing is that it easily converge to something like Win 2000, macOS Leopard. | |
| ▲ | simianparrot a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A photo isn’t an interactive interface so there’s entirely different perception tasks involved in parsing it. We like a lot of things in photos that are horrible for UI design — and vice versa. But this also gets into another gray area where looking at a design for a UI != using said design to perform important tasks. Hence why prototyping and user tests often run counter to “pretty” interfaces. | | |
| ▲ | ninetyninenine 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right but you got any science to back up what you say? I can simply say you’re wrong and I disagree and you got nothing to move your argument forward. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Fannon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, our brain is good at this - but it still takes some capacity in processing to do this. I guess the point is: if you have a simple, high-contrast background - your brain needs less capacity to process it. |
| |
| ▲ | ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-] | | You got evidence to back that up? The human body is designed to desire and consume the maximum amount of feel good tasty food for maximum energy but we are finding that the evolution of the human body is not designed to actually accept such massive consumption despite our desire for such food. Our bodies do not handle the highest capacity consumption instead they have narrowly evolved to fill a strangely specific niche. Same with our eyes. It may seem easier to like high contrast designs but our eyes through millions of years of evolution are not optimized for high contrast signs since those things never existed in nature. |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
