Fun is a valid reason.

Normalise saying “because it’s fun”, “because I like it” “because it’s so cool” as valid reasons for the “why” behind design choices.

Much better than using highfalutin and obscure language that doesn’t tell anyone anything because it’s meaningless fluff.

Not saying design decisions shouldn't be more than just aesthetics, they absolutely should.

But I don't get why that translates into the need to give everything meaning, when clearly some decisions are purely aesthetic.

Is it actually better to not study UI design at all?

Was rummaging through old files, and found one of the early LookUp designs that was very colorful and changed background colors with different modes.

I miss how I could go crazy about my designs when I didn’t study design and didn’t know any better. Back in 2014, I had very little design awareness, I had taken one coursera course and that's about it. So I had no idea what "platform conventions", "consistency" meant. I was just too happy to be designing something. So the first iteration for LookUp was a massive change. It involved crazy colourscheme changes and a completely navy-blue and dark color theme.

Ofourse now I know better and now software must support a 1000 other modes, including light and dark, and every platform has its own convention and want not. It makes me wonder, how much of design education is seeking conformity to norms and how much is it really about expressing yourself.

Consistency is a term that's been borrowed, weaponised and industrialised in teh last few years. From meaning that two similar things should look similar so that people are not confused, it's gone on to mean complete conformity with the interfaces ordained by the company's star designers and the branding that the OS provider uses; more recently it also means taking the fun out of your icons because everything must look the same and everything must support the 10 other modes that the OS provides. Right?

Anyhow. Here's LookUp 2. I had so much fun making this design, more than 10 years ago.

TIAT Place is a fun event to attend

Attended a Creative Technologist's meetup yeesterday, it's called "TIAT place" short for the Intersection of Art and Technology. Fun event with a lot of cool design / maker-ey stuff presented. I loved how each person went through their design process in detail for projects that were side hobbies at best.

The Event happened at the Internet Archive (yes! It's a physical space), which in itself is a fun venue. The central auditorium feels more like a church(!?). I find the whole event fascinating.

Creative Technologists are a small clique in the Bay Area, they don't advertise about the events much, but once you get in, they seem generally cordial and everyone kinda knows everyone else. What's interesting though is that these people aren't really pursuing creative technology in their day jobs, which makes me wonder how many Creative Technologists are actually working as creative technologists; and why then is this such a clique. One of the most annoying habits of Silicon Valley designers is just how performative their "attitude" is. They'll intentionally be hard-to-grab attention, hyper confident in their own work, and follow a "I will only really listen to you if you're a proven designer" attitude to conversation. The nice ones happily strike up a conversation; and they're the ones staying in touch with.

Some pictures from the event:

My Desktop Organization Strategy

So the way I organise and keep my desktop clean is, I take all the desktop files and store them in a folder titled Desktop Files followed by the current year, month, and date; I then move that folder to a folder called "Desktop Files" in my Documents directory. Creating this rather temporal map of all my files.

Essentially something like this: Documents > Desktop Files > Desktop Files 2025 07 17...



The funny thing is, I was talking to a friend yesterday, and they mentioned that they use the same strategy for cleaning their own desktop. And I have heard this from at least one other person (whom i can't remember right now). What a funny coincidence that two people independently reached at the same organisation concept.

Curious if anyone knows if this filing system has a name. If not, maybe I should write a design thesis on it and name it after myself. :P

The idea of Making and Learning vs Learning and Making

I was at an event this Thursday, and an idea struck me. I think the people who make first and then learn have a greater chance of innovating and making cool products than the people who spend a lot of time learning, and then making.

Don't get me wrong, I still value the desk research and user interviews in the process of making something and they remain important parts of the design process. But here's an example. How would you design a UI for a mythical ambient computer that doesn't exist yet. Let's say it's got a projected display. It sits on a desk and it works as a study companion. Design Thinking handbooks will tell you to follow the double diamond process before you put pen to paper, you must do the user research, you must conduct interviews, you must follow the heuristics, you must do X, Y and Z.

Here's the catch. None of this exists for the said platform yet. Now what? Well you make something and then test if it's working. You gotta start from Making and not learning when doing something radically new. You have to be humble enough to make big changes if it's not working. But it's important to follow your instincts, and put your idea to paper, even a sketch to me is an act of making. And then you must show it to the people who will use it, learn from them, adapt to their needs. And that's how you build out something new. Double Diamond fails here.

The biggest problem with the Double Diamond is the lack of trust in a designer's instincts and knowledge. Ideas aren't isolated, they form from a variety of experiences, it's important to acknowledge those experiences to truly understand a problem and possible solutions. Pretending we know nothing about something doesn't help. Starting with a sketch, a paper prototype, an idea of how the solution looks like doesn't hurt anyone. Show it to people you're designing for, then dive deeper into the problem.

Having something to begin with is so much more effective for learning than just mindlessly meandering in different directions. The risk with such meanderings is a) Spending too much time researching and too little making. That leaves less room for iterative learning, and b) conforming to our own biasis.

Just my two very rough cents. Make first, and then learn. But learn for sure.

Habits Change. Social Implications? Not so much

An oft cited example when people talk about the social implications of surveillance like technology (Think Ray Ban Meta Glasses with a camera in front of them) is the malleability of people’s habits and social norms, “Just like AirPods which were ridiculed at first, have become social norm today, glasses with a camera on them could too” is something I’ve often heard.

Here’s the thing. Habits change. The AirPods are personal computing devices that have zero impact on the people around them. The first AirPods customers looked goofy, that’s it; and people eventually found them to be more convenient and started wearing them more often. It did not have an immediate impact on the people around them.

Glasses with a camera attached to them are another issue entirely. They have an immediate impact on the people around you. Put a camera in front of a person and they immediately become conscious of what they’re saying. There’s an implication of recording. It’s almost as if the camera lens gives the “affordance” of this being surveillance tech. Do we expect people to become comfortable with such technology? Do we expect people to just start being ok with being recorded without consent? Heck no.

Look at the amount of crime, and creep that people face every day with surreptitious “recordings” (Sure that’s unheard off, if you’re a cis-het male in the most posh neighborhood of Silicon Valley, but there’s a world outside that bubble). The social reaction to such tech becoming mainstream will be visceral, and for good reason; for its not just a change of habit, it’s the change of social dynamic.

The Type of Dunkirk

Vidit Bhargava
I had the opportunity to watch Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk recently, and it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. I really liked the interplay between the three parallel timelines, the sparing use of dialogue and the haunting cinematography but what I found really intriguing was their consistent use of the Akzidenz-Grotesk type.

What’s interesting is that Akzidenz-Grotesk is a late 19th century sans-serif typeface from a German foundry. At surface it seems ironical to use Akzidenz in a movie based on World War II with the chief characters as the British.

However, If you put some thought to it, maybe it isn’t so ironic. The primary emotion is pure faceless-terror. The terror is induced by the German forces, of which we don’t see so much as a shadow. The presence of German forces is only validated by dropping bombs, gun-fire or mass destruction Of ships. It’s terror, and there’s not just a minimalist character of violence attached to it.

What’d be the type of faceless terror to the British forces at Dunkirk? Akzidenz isn’t a bad choice for that. It’s got a ‘monoline’ structure, it’s pretty non-descript and it’s undeniably German!

The only other font that comes to mind is a much later released Helvetica, but then it wasn’t released until 1957, long after the Dunkirk evacuation, and was itself based on Akzidenz Grotesk.

However, during the inter-war period, a completely different sans-serif evolution was taking place in Germany, that of geometric typefaces and “Futura” is one of the most popular typefaces from the era. Having said that Futura has a lot more character than Akzidenz and the entire idea may have been to offer a less characteristic typeface, since the enemy doesn’t even appear on screen.

To me, it’s one of the best Type choices for a movie. The best part is, they remain consistent in its using. It’s the same typeface that is used in the credits and the same type face that’s used for titles.

For a typeface of faceless terror for the four hundred thousand soldiers stranded at Dunkirk, Akzidenz is a great choice.

The Puck is not going towards a Technology

Vidit Bhargava
There's a popular Wayne Gretzky quote : “A Great Hockey Player plays where the puck is going to be”. In recent times, we've heard the quote being referred to predict the future of consumer electronics. You'd often hear people say, “What's next after the GUI? Where is the puck going to be?”

And if you've followed technology news for the last couple of months, you've probably heard people say, “AI is the future.” ; “The next big thing is Virtual Reality” or more recently “Augmented Reality has finally made it to the masses.” All of them stating that the metaphorical puck is going towards AI, AR or VR.

Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality are all extremely interesting fields of technological research. In fact, Artificial Intelligence has for long captured the imagination of people. There have been books, movies and TV Shows about what happens when a Machine or a Robot or an AI Powered cyborg takes over the city, In fact, Elon Musk clearly feels that we're living in a simulation! So, it must be where the puck is going, right?

But here's the catch. The puck doesn't go towards a technology. It doesn't even go towards a particular design paradigm. The puck goes towards a Human Problem. Technology is just a means of finding a solution to that problem. The solution may include the use of sophisticated AI but it's equally likely that the in final product that the user uses, AI is just a footnote.

The same can be said for Augmented or Virtual Reality, it's evident that they'll exist in some form in the future (To Be Honest, They've always existed in some or the other state), but there's a strong likelihood that they won't drive the products they're a part Of. Take the example of Pokemon Go. What makes that game so successful? Is it the AR Mode? No! It's the idea, that you can be a real Poke Master, that you too can move around the city and collect Pokemon like Ash Ketchum did, that makes it so exciting to a group of people. AR Mode? It's just an icing on the cake (it's not the cake).

The tiny keyboards and displays of the early mobile phones, were extremely limiting to what one could do with them. Modern day Touch Screen technology helped solve the problem, it provided a bigger canvas for mobile phones to do anything they liked. The keyboard wasn't limiting anymore. It could pop up whenever you wanted it to, stay down when you didn't. But it wasn't the touch screen technology alone that enabled smartphones to be the computers of the post PC era. It was the mixture of, a carefully crafted operating system which was meant to be used by your fingers instead of some kind of a navigational tool; the extremely complex hardware that made it possible for a powerful computer to fit into a hand-held device, the materials that gave it a light weight casing, making the experience of holding it in your hands for a long duration more comfortable. All of these technologies came together to form the basis of a modern day smartphone, There was a lot that the computers of the time couldn't do, or were less efficient in doing because of their size and lack of portability. There were a lot of things that a smartphone was capable of but couldn't because of it's limitations, the puck was definitely going towards more portable computers that enabled people to do their work more efficiently. Problems and challenges unlocked diverse possibilities in ways that helped people, all the cool technology involved, was just a tool used to achieve that. Had the puck been going towards touch screen technology, we'd still be using Palm Pilots or even Newton Message Pads.

Notes on iPhone 6 and 6Plus

Vidit Bhargava

I am sure most of us have gone through the "features" of the new phones. This post is meant to draw attention to some slight details of the new device:

1. The iPhone design and plastic bars.
Some time back in 2012 Apple announced what was perhaps their best designed iPod ever. The 5th Generation iPod Touch. That device's back was a clear indication as to where Apple wanted to go with it's new iPhones. The iPhone at that time had an aluminum back with two glass panels at the top and bottom of it. It was clearly visible that engineering constraints made apple do that. Limitations at the time stopped apple from bringing an all metal back to the market without destroying call reception.

Jump to 2014, and Apple's out with a completely new all metal design for its new iPhones. It's nothing short of an engineering marvel.. But some plastic bands still exist. Apple's design feels great, it's one of their best works yet but at the same time it feels like a compromise. There's a Slight room for improvement here. The camera protrusion can be ironed out, the plastic bands wiped out. 

The design is no doubt great and while this may be the closest we've got to a perfect Aluminum back for the iPhone, I guess the iPhone 6S or iPhone 7 might have significant updates to the design which bring us much closer to the extinction of plastic bands from the iPhone.

2. Apple Pay
I'm not to sure about the NFC tap to pay machines that'll enable iPhones to pay via a single tap and authenticate via TouchID but I'm sure that the Apple Pay for online transactions is going to be big. 

Most online transactions generally require a one time passcode or login Ids to authenticate a payer's identity. Something like the Apple Pay can be highly successful here. You just need to authenticate via your finger print to purchase something, getting rid of the extremely inconvenient login passwords that one needed to enter before every transaction.

But The international availability of Apple Pay is going to be a big question here. For India it's just a matter of how quickly RBI approves finger print authentications as passwords for online payments.

3. A Case for the 5.5-inch iPhone

5.5-inches just feels too big to me ( and to lots of other people) but at the same time there are a good many customers looking forward to something this big. First, a 5.5-inch phone handles content creation lot better than how a 4.7-inch device would. And Secondly, the screen is far better for on the fly entertainment like watching movies. If those two things are your priority instead of something more pocketable, I guess the iPhone 6Plus is a no brainer then.

Another interesting point about the new iPhones was made on John Gruber's show sometime back, he says that it may look extremely awkward to hold something as big as an iPhone 6Plus to your ear but the way forward in phones hardly involves that gesture any more. In fact the screen matters more if you are using something like FaceTime or Skype. 

In the end I guess the phone screen sizes are going to become like Laptop sizes, there still exists an 11-inch MacBook Air and a 15-inch MacBook Pro but the sweet spot for a lot of people is the 13-inch Variant. I don't see why the phones won't follow a similar vein, with 4-inches being the smallest but going all the way up to 5.5-inches if someone likes. 

For me, the 4.7" on iPhone 6 is the maximum screen size that I can go to. I still think 3.5" or 4" are the optimum sizes for a phone. 

4. Camera
When it comes to Camera updates Apple goes on a nerd roll during its keynote. There's hardly a thing I understood about the new sensors but the gist of it was that the iPhone would get a lot better at Auto Focus and Low Light Images.

Final Thoughts
The iPhone 6 and 6Plus are solid upgrades to the iPhone lineup. I personally like the 4.7" iPhone 6 very much. I'm particularly excited about the camera improvements and Apple Pay in the new iPhones.

There's a strong echo of iterative design here, a reluctance to do too much in one iteration. This is something I strongly admire about apple's products. While every generation of their new product is just a small iteration but even if you look at something that's 2-3 generations old, you see how big a change the new one is.

Learning From Mistakes

Vidit Bhargava
A simple example from Apple's previous products about learning from mistakes made in the past.


In 2000 Apple came out with PowerMac G4 Cube, a computer that was an aesthetic masterpiece but overpriced and under performing, something which became the reason of its failure. Also it was perhaps the first time people realized that aesthetics are temporary (the Cube developed cracks very easily) but design (not just aesthetics but how well the parts of the product gel together as well) is permanent. In 2013, Apple came out with MacPro A cylindrical Mac which aesthetically challenges the same concepts of computing as the G4 Cube did. Why does a desktop have to be a Tower? Why can't pro users enjoy a luxurious Mac? But unlike the Cube the Mac Pro is neither under powered nor overpriced. (check price comparisons which show how much does it take to assemble a PC with same specs). And is doing well along with getting some great reviews as well.


A lesson well learnt about design. Aesthetics are temporary. Design is Permanent.