undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalexqgb13y ago0 comments

The similarities are superficial at best. Fashion, almost by definition, is ephemeral. Design, on the other hand, strives for permanence.

"Constantly reinvention" is just total bullshit when you start talking about salt and pepper shakers. And so is the idea of "staying ahead of the curve" when doing so means a non-stop torrent of additions to landfills everywhere. Good designers get this. They're actually very resourceful people who are trying to make the world work better in ways both small and large. Squandering resources with a stream of pointless variations doesn't square with this ethos at all.

The difference between design and trash is that good design is what you hold onto for years, even generations. What the best designers strive for is the elegant solution, a perfect convergence of form and function that resists further change for as long as humanly possible.

Again, the opposite of fashion.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

jiggy201113y ago· 1 in thread

There are remarkably few web designs that have much permanence. Sites that were designed 5 years ago can look very dated today.

Since the web is a place where things are very easily copied, it stands to reason that good ideas will be emulated and this is to be expected.

It would seem quite contrary to the idea of the web to give a single entity a monopoly on laying out a page in a particular way.

alexqgbOP13y ago

It's true that websites and sofas have different refresh rates, but I'm guessing you didn't read the OP, check out the site in question, or click through to any of the examples he provided.

If you do, you'll see that we're not talking about general conventions here (e.g. the similar layouts of YouTube and Kickstarter pages). Nor is this "emulation" in many cases. It's just unvarnished theft (i.e. using the same copyright protected photos as backgrounds).

Best thing to do is to send the owner a Cease & Desist letter, and if they're based in the US, a threat to have the site pulled by the webhost under the DMCA in the event that the owner refuses to comply. It's diplomatic to give the owner a way to save face be acknowledging that that may also be getting victimized by an unscrupulous third party who is passing off the work of others as their own. But also note that this doesn't change the facts of the matter, and state that, one way or another, the site must come down immediately.

You shouldn't say or offer anything else until they call you back and offer you a chance to gauge their demeanor. Chances are good, they're going to be angry. Question is, at who? If it's with you (for ruining their day) then fuck 'em. They're not the kind of people you want anything to do with. Just tell them they have 24 hours to comply or you'll have the site pulled for violating copyrights, and that you won't release the claim unless they pay you several thousand dollars. However, if they're reasonable, they'll be angry with their vendor, apologetic with you, and then you can turn the exchange into a sales call.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse