The reason why I think they rejected you is because you are a single founder. That means if you get hit by a bus they're fucked. Whereas, if you had a team or a co-founder the company can still go on without you.
I agree that you shouldn't waste time, but I think wireframing is an important and necessary step that shouldn't be avoided or underestimated.
When you go right into high fidelity prototyping you are focusing on many elements of the design simultaneously. You are focusing on the coding (html prototypes), visual design, information architecture (layout, navigation, etc) and you are doing it all at once.
Because of this you end up giving each department bits and pieces of attention, but not enough to see all the details and insights had you focused entirely on each department one-by-one.
I've shot right to hi-fi mockups before and I ended up not seeing a crucial insight in the information architecture side of the project. For me, doing low-fi wireframes and then moving to hi-fi mockups works much better, so I don't overlook certain details and insights.
I appreciate your honesty and feedback. However, every article offers thorough and detailed reasoning of why something is suggested as a best practice. The reasoning is key.
It's also important to remember that just because it's a best practice does not mean it will apply for every design in every case, which is why testing should be done on your own with your own site if you feel the need.
We believe that picking ideas apart through and through with the use of experience, logic and intuition with brilliant design thinkers is the only way to arrive at something substantial and meaningful.
Simply accepting something because it has been tested or researched is not good enough, and does not engage the mind. Independently thinking about an idea with other independent thinkers is the only true way to arrive at something meaningful. While this is probably quite difficult, we are up to the challenge.
Meaning no disrespect, but I've on occasion had the situation where independent thinkers doing independent thinking suggest that A is the Acknowledged Right Way To Do Things. The example which leaps instantly to mind is consistent navigation placement: your nav bar should be visible, consistent, and always in the same place throughout the website, right?
Amazon hides sitewide navigation during checkout. I don't go quite so far, but I've tested a few variations, including A: sitewide nav and B: one-off nav which includes only things that I feel are likely to increase conversion.
B crushes A in tests on my site, to the tune of "would cost me thousands of bucks a year to do A instead". Do I get a subsidy from the Right Honorable Guild Of Independent Thinkers for doing it the correct way? Because doing it the way that actually works is really tempting.
That's all well and good, but we'd still prefer some more data backing up your claims. The claims made in your article on how people read text were refuted by a paper linked here on HN. That alone makes your future articles and the claims made in them somewhat questionable.
>> However, every article offers thorough and detailed reasoning of why something is suggested as a best practice. The reasoning is key.
I could show you 10 thorough and detailed product pitches from seasoned and experienced people for Farmville. 8 out of those 10 pitches turn out to be utter failures in the field.
Hacker News has little patience for armchair theory. Why do you think patio11 is so highly regarded? It's because he shows us why our rational thinking about users is wrong straight from the trenches.
This isn't "armchair theory". Read the article again. The reasons are solid and the end result is what it says it is.
The article isn't saying if you do your search this way you will sell a billion products. Of course if that was the claim some statistical proof would be necessary. All the article is doing is offering a simpler and cleaner approach to search. That's all.
Comments that detract value or are off-topic are deleted. You can still disagree and add value, but unfortunately your motive so far has only been to detract value, which is professionally disappointing.
What you are asking for is for the research to tell you how to think and to validate the idea for you. That's somebody else's work, not yours. So you are wanting them to think for you, instead of thinking about the idea on your own. That's not critical thinking.
Critical thinking involves using your own mind to think about an idea without research. Not many people can do this.
Ideas are presented all the time. You either agree or disagree. If you are curious for evidence, then you do the research yourself. But don't agree or disagree on the basis that no research is presented, or on the basis that lots of research is presented. Either way is not critical thinking.
Dieterrams, thank you. What you said is exactly right. The reason the comment form is the way it is is because I could not find the right css code to change it, as the site is a WP theme buried in code.
However, this is completely irrelevant to the idea in the article and does not take any merit off of it whatsoever. If you cannot judge an idea for the idea itself, what chance do you have at learning anything from anything you read?
