It's completely justified. For example: show me where in Poltz's long career as a writer and editor that he secretly squeezed in the years of UX, design, and development experience that qualifies him to make a statement about designing user interfaces.
The problem is that editors simply don't believe there is special expertise here or that it requires anything beyond their insight.
This design doesn't incorporate many of the base standards for displaying long-form web content. Font size is way too small (should be 16-18px, 14px absolute minimum), column is too wide ("ideal" is 66 characters, though there's a wide range). A good starter article: http://informationarchitects.net/blog/100e2r/ There are many, many more.
Until that page is completely redesigned and returned to a readable baseline, it's difficult to discuss or test anything.
Agree completely with font size and column-width critiques, both of which are addressed in an upcoming redesign. And, for that matter, I've always had issue with Slate's UX and design choices.
>The fact is that editors simply don't believe there is special expertise here.
I agree that UX and design are often neglected when traditional publishers work in digital mediums. But I find it odd that you can appreciate the experience that leads to good UX and design but not the editorial and reporting experience that leads to good copy.
not the editorial and reporting experience that leads to good copy
Writing, content strategy, curation, copywriting, etc are obviously all important skills. However, being an editor does not remotely qualify someone to run a multimillion dollar business, design software, dictate engineering decisions, etc. Unfortunately, the industry is structured such that they are doing exactly that.
Is it any surprise that slate's division is operating at a loss? It's the norm in a broken industry.
Not to be too off-topic, but with a slight modification:
> However, being an [insert pre-digital mgr/executive]* does not remotely qualify someone to run a multimillion dollar business, design software, dictate engineering decisions, etc. Unfortunately, the industry is structured such that they are doing exactly that.
This is everywhere, I think. I've experienced first-hand the same problems in non-publishing industries where companies who rely on the web to do business are staffed with people who hardly understand the web making technical and software decisions, overriding software engineers and programmers making suggestions that are in opposition to the random thoughts in their heads. This is where the trump card of being higher up the ladder is played, and typically with detrimental results of varying degrees.
It's a serious problem in any business when web & technology decisions are still being made by people who don't understand the web & technology, and can't build it themselves.
Outside of the software industry, most businesses I've run across think being able to open a web browser or being in a mgmt/exec-level position qualifies them to actually make good software decisions.
* By pre-digital I mean old businesses that have moved to the web for various things, but are staffed by people who don't build software making key software decisions [e.g., electrical engineers, marketing execs, etc. making decisions on platforms, languages, and implementations while ignoring the advice of actual developers].
Somewhat ironically, I find that page a little hard to read because the background is so bright. I find reading text on HN much easier with a darker grey background.
It's completely justified. For example: show me where in Poltz's long career as a writer and editor that he secretly squeezed in the years of UX, design, and development experience that qualifies him to make a statement about designing user interfaces.
The problem is that editors simply don't believe there is special expertise here or that it requires anything beyond their insight.
I admit that I'm not always happy with the result ... http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/the-cosmolog...
This design doesn't incorporate many of the base standards for displaying long-form web content. Font size is way too small (should be 16-18px, 14px absolute minimum), column is too wide ("ideal" is 66 characters, though there's a wide range). A good starter article: http://informationarchitects.net/blog/100e2r/ There are many, many more.
Until that page is completely redesigned and returned to a readable baseline, it's difficult to discuss or test anything.