I did not call you immature, I called your comment immature. You made your point with an ad hominem on a whole profession of designers who care about pixel alignments, and so I seriously doubt you have significant experience working with designers.
> But my point is that the design details that should be obsessed over come way before the traditional pixel pushing session at the end of the job. Things like consistent, simple and really robust visual relationships between components and typography across devices and viewport sizes. In my experience this is where good designers spend their energies - and if its done well pixel pushing should not be required.
Pixel pushing is ALWAYS required at some point; it is unavoidable given our current technology. A designer cannot magically come up with a generic responsive design because developers just can't make that happen (through no fault of their own). Take for example icon design: it is well known that vector graphics are quite limited and bitmap icons must be generated and manually red lined for various resolutions. That is work the designer (or production specialist) does. Similarly, size-independent layouts are also a pipe dream, not because the designer is incapable, but the frameworks are! Hence, we are stuck optimizing layouts and pixel alignments for multiple sizes manually.
tl;dr "consistent, simple and really robust visual relationships between components and typography across devices and viewport sizes" is very often not workable in the real world for any non-trivial design.
Hackernews is surprisingly quite anti-designer in posting sentiment.
Can a comment itself be immature? I'm pretty sure only a commenter has the agency to be immature, but anyway that's beside the point :)
> You made your point with an ad hominem on a whole profession of designers who care about pixel alignments
Nope, at no point did I ever criticise designers who care about pixel alignments. I criticised designers who place too much value on pixel pushing at the end of a project - for me it's often a red flag.
Admittedly where an approach involving "consistent, simple and really robust visual relationships between components and typography across devices and viewport sizes" works best are for projects more towards the web app end of the spectrum, I will concede that point, but it doesn't mean the design has to be trivial.
> I criticised designers who place too much value on pixel pushing at the end of a project - for me it's often a red flag.
A lot of the bugs discovered during design QA involve pixel alignment issues. That is one of the main reason why we have design QA. Frankly, if something worse comes out of that (like a bigger interaction design flaw), then there are serious problems that jeopardize the project and somebody in dev or design has royally screwed up.
> works best are for projects more towards the web app end of the spectrum, I will concede that point, but it doesn't mean the design has to be trivial.
Does it really work for web? Even for web, better designs are often stuck with 2 or 3 layouts to manually tune.
> I'm pretty sure only a commenter has the agency to be immature
The commentator has agency, but by their human nature are complex enough that their individual actions - be they mature, immature, or whatever else - are rarely adequate to judge the commentator as a whole.
The most mature among us still has agency to make immature comments. The most immature among us still has agency to make mature comments. Labeling the act is not labeling the actor.
> But my point is that the design details that should be obsessed over come way before the traditional pixel pushing session at the end of the job. Things like consistent, simple and really robust visual relationships between components and typography across devices and viewport sizes. In my experience this is where good designers spend their energies - and if its done well pixel pushing should not be required.
Pixel pushing is ALWAYS required at some point; it is unavoidable given our current technology. A designer cannot magically come up with a generic responsive design because developers just can't make that happen (through no fault of their own). Take for example icon design: it is well known that vector graphics are quite limited and bitmap icons must be generated and manually red lined for various resolutions. That is work the designer (or production specialist) does. Similarly, size-independent layouts are also a pipe dream, not because the designer is incapable, but the frameworks are! Hence, we are stuck optimizing layouts and pixel alignments for multiple sizes manually.
tl;dr "consistent, simple and really robust visual relationships between components and typography across devices and viewport sizes" is very often not workable in the real world for any non-trivial design.
Hackernews is surprisingly quite anti-designer in posting sentiment.