| ▲ | ninetyninenine a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | cosmotic a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Yes, the articles are scientific. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01698... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929041000166... https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2121593 Though this lacks citations and evidence, it's by a generally accepted expert and authority in the field: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/low-contrast/ I'm really struggling to understand the connections you're drawing to food. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||