Timeline for UX style guide techniques
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Dec 4, 2012 at 7:48 | history | suggested | Luke Charde | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited to shorter url
|
| Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 4, 2012 at 7:48 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2012 at 20:40 | comment | added | user17508 | Jonw and Loren, you are both right, my answer was incomplete and not clear what the link was supposed to do. Instead, I should have written" you can write a guide, etc. ". Thank you. | |
| Sep 28, 2012 at 20:34 | comment | added | user17508 | I am not judging the content or the merit of the guide I posted. I linked to it - and as said, plan to use as an example, because it's really what a guide should be: a collaborative effort that works for that company, with their methods ans standards. I like it and I believe it helps to answer the questions posted: "I just want things to be functional. What's the best way to communicate designs to remote teams?" It might not be the best way, but having clear guidance is always a good way. | |
| Sep 27, 2012 at 13:56 | comment | added | Sauce McBoss | Good points so far. I just want to echo @JonW -- this doesn't answer my question. I'm assuming you're suggesting that I make an online guide, and you link to an example. -1 for answer, +1 for commenters. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 8:39 | comment | added | JonW♦ | Thanks for your answer, although can you summarize the content of this article? As this post on meta stackoverflow discusses "you haven't answered their question, you've deferred the answering to somewhere else.". If that link were to be taken down, we would lose all context. If you can summarize the article and provide the link as the citation source then you'll be providing a useful answer to the question. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 2:47 | comment | added | Luke Charde | Granted, the guide is rough, young and iterative - but it's helping bring our government enterprise forward... The real work of UX is the day-to-day agile/iterative collaboration with project teams - we chose to let a UX Guide evolve from the daily issues encountered, regardless of how rough it started. Certainly UX folk could rip it apart, but as Loren noted in the question... it's a big messy project. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 1:32 | comment | added | Aadaam | Perhaps I was lucky, but that's worse stuff than what I've worked with in my development carreer or gave out of my hands in other roles. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 0:38 | comment | added | DA01 | For a UX guide, it's pretty good, IMHO. At least compared to what people usually have to work with--which is little-to-nothing. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 0:12 | comment | added | Aadaam | Actually, as for a UX guide, this is pretty bad. For a starter, the site itself has bad UX. It even starts with a tutorial: what am I using, a game or a website? In case you need to have a tutorial for your navigation, redesign navigation. Imagine if Amazon did tutorials... revenues would be down by 20%. Some of the advices are outright bad (error prevention), and the whole UX content is about 10% of the site, unfinished, more like a work of an enthusiastic novice than a professional. The dev part is full-fledged, it provides a twitter-bootstrap like library, but a widget is not a pattern | |
| Sep 25, 2012 at 23:40 | history | answered | user17508 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |