Toxic Grandfather Interface Tales “Instrumental Trash” (s1 e2)

Greetings!
We are again on the verge of the smoky closet of Toxic Grandfather, our guide to the mysterious and mysterious world of b2b interfaces and thick trolling.


We: Great, Grandfather!
TD: Yes, what do you need?
We: We want to ask.
TD: Well, burn.
We: How do you like the new update for Figma?
TD: No way. I have not seen the old.
We: I see. Sketch, so you're messing around?
TD: “Looks at us like shit”
We: But what's wrong?
ETC: Static prototypes can only be used on something simple. Mobile appendices, landings, simple sites ... in general, everything that you like so much on behachics and dribbblek, my girls. And in our closet it’s customary to make prototypes that work. Such, so that with eggs, so that from the final application at first glance you can not distinguish!
We: Well, Figma can ...
TD: Transitions between screens?
We: Yes!
TD: Don’t run into a rhyme ...
We: Well, but what are you using?
TD: According to the circumstances. Axure, Justinmind, React. If you need to quickly prototype something complicated with a bunch of logical forks and states, then the easiest way is in Axure or Justinmind. If the logic is more or less simple and the deadlines are tight, you can immediately make up for React or pure HTML / CSS. Well, when everything is completely bad, you can throw in QT Design, if the application is sawn in a suitable language. What would amuse the developers.
We: And what is the profit?
T.D .:Paradoxically, saving time. When you have a well-assembled prototype on Axure, it’s easy and pleasant to maintain, and most importantly, you can immediately show how the application works. Easy passage through the scenarios and, as a result, elimination of possible errors in the early stages. Plus, you can see the whole picture, which is important. With static pictures, this will not work at all. And then b2b is always a marathon. Having opened the prototype in a year, at least you can remember how it works. Well, with statics, you are doomed to kilometers of textual descriptions, and in case of serious changes, also to a bunch of manual work on redrawing / rewriting.
We:But the threshold of entry for such programs is monstrous! The designer, however, should not understand the layout, much less programming! It should create a visual representation.
TD: First of all, who said he shouldn't? If you already work in some field, it would be nice to figure out how that works. At least approximately. And then your art is then too expensive to implement. Well, the threshold of entry is not so high, in the end, even the monkey will learn. Secondly, visual representation is a thing in itself.
We: Why?
T.D .: Because.
We: Can you explain?
T.D .: I can.
We: ...
TD: ...
We: Grandfather, sick of it!
T.D .:Oh, you might think ... Okay. An example for those in the tank. Imagine a machine gun?
We: Kalashnikov?
TD: Well, for example. What is it for? What is his task?
We: Shoot.
TD: Great. If it is painted red, will it shoot?
We: Yes.
TD: And if in green?
We: Well, yes.
TD: And if in blue?
We: Grandfather!
TD: That is, the functionality does not depend on color?
We: It turns out no.
T.D .: Super. And if you take the slide frame and change it to the butt, change the logical model, so to speak? Will shoot?
We:No. He won't even get together.
TD: So, if an assault rifle needs to shoot, then it can be of any color, the main thing is to be correctly assembled?
We: In theory, yes.
T.D .:I’m all about the fact that the visual representation in most cases was initially set by rather rigid frames. The interface should perform the task and have a design that contributes to this. In the example with an assault rifle, there is a paramount task - he must shoot and a secondary task - the assault rifle must not unmask a soldier on the ground. The second task in this case is a fine-tuning, for example, painting a ready-made machine under the "forest" or under the "desert". In any case, a working machine, painted in a "forest" camouflage, in the desert will be better than a disabled, but disguised in accordance with the terrain.
We: Digging deep.
T.D .:Full bayonet! Of course, it’s nice when you have a complete coincidence and the working product is well designed and everything works in conjunction. But in reality you can only choose the shape and size of the horn, the lining on the handle, the presence of a grenade launcher and a ton of body kit. BUT! All this again will depend on the specific task, which means that the list of variations in each particular case will be small. Of course, you can put the kit on all occasions, but any pros will tell you that the more the tool is sharpened for a specific task, the better. And in the interfaces you have to look for this very balance of specialization and multifunctionality.
We: How scary to live!
T.D .:And you thought. To summarize, the interactive prototype is precisely the prototype of the machine from which you can not just simulate shooting, but naturally wither. All the necessary controls will be present, the shutter will go, the sleeves will be thrown out and in general it will be clear how to live on with this all. What kit to put, what store to complete. And statics more closely resembles children's plastic molding. The controls seem to be there, but they are just bulges on the hull and ultimately you have to imagine how it all will work. On such a model, you can only figure out textures and coloring, which, as we have already found out, is not a priority.
We: Why React, HTML / CSS, and what else did you say there?
T.D .:And this, in order to see you better, granddaughter !!!
We: Grandfather!
TD: Oh everyone. There are moments in life when you just need to draw a face, without a slick logic, without 100,500 pop-ups, just a few screens. And why, one wonders, do double work? First draw, then give it to layout, then oversee copyright. It’s easier to do it yourself right away and give it to the layout designer for verification.
We: That is, static prototypes are evil?
T.D .: No. Just inconvenient for complex development. And what kind of categories do you have, evil / good, black / white, “flexible” must be. And then there is one shame.
We: Do you understand how much shit will be in the comments?
T.D .: Yes, do not care. I'm made up.
We:Well yes. Is logical. Can we go already?
TD: Tablecloth on * opera.
We: Say something last.
TD: This is so ... nya, little ones.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/undefined/