Because what we needed in this community is more negativity.
If you had read the article, you would have found that it is in fact way more than a simple takedown of the product. Toby does a great job of pointing out the flaws in the product—not to bash it, but to help others learn from it.
When Wildcard launched, I had trouble understanding why I would use this product. Toby manages to describe the reason very well. But, I saw tons of very positive tweets, mostly focused on the design of the app (more specifically, the effect applied to the images) which, to me, made it seem that people were ignoring the fact that the app, at it's core, is not at all useful.
Thanks for reading, Daniel! One of the reasons I felt compelled to write this is indeed because of all the positivity surrounding the design of the new Wildcard (what with that halftone effect and the card physics). Nobody seemed to be interested in the why behind it all.
@Joel @Wesley In retrospect I should have used a less inflammatory title (edited accordingly now). The linked article is my own critique though, so if you're interested in the content feel free to click on.
Actually, I'd argue that we do if one would consider this "negative". This is being critical... there is a difference. I personally think too many designers get way too butt-hurt over criticism - even if it would benefit them and their craft in the long run.
This was a legitimate reaction to the initial title, which I'm glad to say has been changed.
The title of the post here on DN is kind of harsh and does not reflect the post on your website, Toby. It's well written and very interesting.
yea, because saying something sucks is a great way to move forward in product design. people poured countless hours into this. the least you could do is provide your own critique and not be completely lazy and link to someone else's critique. yeesh.
wish i could downvote this.
Maybe I'm missing something, but you do realize that the OP is also the author of the article, right?
Spoiler: he doesn't.