Ultrascience Labs continues to use 88x31 pixel buttons despite advancements in screen resolutions and design trends. This seemingly outdated size stems from their early adoption of the dimension for physical buttons, which translated directly to their digital counterparts. Maintaining this size ensures consistency across their brand and product line, especially for long-time users familiar with the established button dimensions. While acknowledging the peculiarity, they prioritize familiarity and usability over adhering to modern design conventions, viewing the unusual size as a unique identifier and part of their brand identity.
In a detailed exposition titled "Why We Are Still Using 88x31 Buttons," Ultrascience Labs meticulously explains their continued utilization of the unconventional 88 pixel wide by 31 pixel tall button dimension, a choice that seemingly defies contemporary web design trends. The authors commence by acknowledging the peculiarity of this specific dimension, admitting that it is neither inherently aesthetic nor aligned with established interface guidelines. However, they proceed to articulate a multi-faceted rationale rooted in historical context, pragmatic considerations, and a touch of playful defiance.
The genesis of this unique button size can be traced back to the company's nascent stages, a period characterized by rapid prototyping and a focus on functional minimalism. At that time, the 88x31 dimension arose organically from the design process, proving sufficient to encapsulate the required text and maintain a semblance of visual harmony within the initial interface. While subsequent redesigns and platform migrations offered opportunities to conform to more conventional button dimensions, the 88x31 size persisted, gradually embedding itself within the company's visual identity and user experience.
Furthermore, the authors elaborate on the inherent inertia associated with altering a deeply ingrained design element. Modifying the button size would necessitate a cascading series of adjustments throughout the codebase and associated design assets, a task deemed excessively time-consuming and resource-intensive given the perceived lack of substantial benefit. The potential disruption to user familiarity and muscle memory is also cited as a deterrent, emphasizing the value of consistency in user interface design.
Finally, Ultrascience Labs infuses their justification with a dash of lighthearted irreverence, embracing the quirky distinctiveness of their button dimensions. They posit that the unconventional size serves as a subtle yet tangible manifestation of their company culture, a testament to their willingness to deviate from the norm and prioritize practical efficacy over aesthetic conformity. In essence, the 88x31 button has transcended its purely functional origins, evolving into a symbolic emblem of Ultrascience Labs' unique identity and pragmatic approach to web development. Therefore, despite its apparent idiosyncrasy, the 88x31 button remains a deliberate and cherished element of the Ultrascience Labs user experience.
Summary of Comments ( 49 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43596570
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the article, pointing out that the 88x31 button size became a standard due to early GUI limitations and the subsequent network effects of established tooling and libraries. Some commenters highlighted the inertia in UI design, noting that change is difficult even when the original constraints are gone. Others offered practical reasons for the standard's persistence, such as existing muscle memory and the ease of finding pre-made assets. A few users suggested the size is actually aesthetically pleasing and functional, fitting well within typical UI layouts. One compelling comment thread discussed the challenges of deviating from established norms, citing potential compatibility issues and user confusion as significant barriers to adopting alternative button sizes.
The Hacker News post "We are still using 88x31 buttons" generated a moderate amount of discussion with a focus on practicality, aesthetics, and the enduring nature of established conventions.
Several commenters highlighted the practical advantages of the 88x31 button size. One commenter emphasized the established tooling and readily available resources for this size, making it a convenient choice for developers. This ease of access, combined with its familiarity among users, contributes to its continued usage. Another echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the size has become a standard, and deviating from it requires strong justification. They argue that unless there's a compelling reason to change, sticking with the known quantity is often the most efficient approach.
The aesthetic aspect was also discussed. One user mentioned that the size, while seemingly arbitrary, "looks right" and fits well within various layouts. This suggests a certain visual harmony that has been achieved with the 88x31 dimensions. Another commenter pointed out that the size is large enough to accommodate labels and icons comfortably, contributing to a user-friendly experience. They also touched on the idea of visual consistency, implying that maintaining a uniform button size across platforms and applications provides a sense of familiarity and predictability for users.
The historical context of the 88x31 size was also brought up. A commenter speculated that the dimensions might be related to older screen resolutions or limitations in early graphical user interfaces. While no definitive answer was provided, this comment hinted at the possibility of the size being a legacy from earlier computing eras.
Finally, the discussion touched on the inertia of established conventions. One commenter expressed a general sentiment of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," suggesting that the 88x31 button size continues to serve its purpose adequately and therefore doesn't warrant change. This reinforces the idea that in the absence of compelling reasons for change, sticking with established standards is often the most pragmatic approach. Another commenter mentioned that rebuilding all existing UIs to accommodate a different button size would be a massive undertaking, and the benefits likely wouldn't outweigh the costs. This underscores the practical challenges involved in disrupting well-established conventions, even if there are theoretical advantages to doing so.