The contrast ratios displayed here are not compliant. Users with subpar monitors, poor eyesight, colour blindness are likely not going to even see the fields.

I see you have (quite rudely) responded to a similar comment on your article, and your response was:

The image example is for demonstrating the concept and principle. It’s not dictating that you should use the exact colors you see on it, so there’s no use in nitpicking at that. If you want to make it 3:1, darken the borders.

I think this negates your article a little "If you want to make it 3:1, darken the borders" - it also displays a bit of a lack of conviction in your suggestion. If you want to demonstrate a solid design principle, it should work in the example.

Off-white text fields draw attention to each field quickly so users can interact with them right away. They also provide a clearer focus on the input so users can type, check, and correct them easier.

Any evidence to support this? Would be very nice to see some if you do have it.

You've noted that Amazons form is: 1. Harder to focus on input 2. Discourages interaction 3. Unappealing impression

My impression is that it's very likely that Amazon have put a great deal of focus into the usability and performance of their forms

It’s important to note that off-white does not equal gray. Avoid using solid gray text fields because users tend to perceive them as disabled or inactive. They can also make input and placeholder text harder to read.

I think this would cause issues for colour blind folks

Have you got a link? Or some examples of what the ideas were?

Possibly silly question - but why is it 4 sketches at 5 seconds per sketch? Crazy 8's is 8 sketches at 1 minute per sketch.

I'm surprised this hasn't got more chat going on... Perhaps the cryptic title is stopping people engaging with this post?

I'm really excited for this - our team currently uses blueprint for our design system and it would be insanely helpful to be able to render live components right into Figma so we can rapidly create design work, and iterate fast, while ensuring we are always using what's live - long term we will use our own design system we create, and this would be a real asset to have with that.

I wonder what the timeline is like to get this production ready? I certainly wouldn't be using it as it is.

Measuring things in terms of net positive is such bullshit.

It's not, and your example is hyperbole.

Your tact is all wrong. See my reply to your comment lower down.

Jake’s way of handling this was a lot more tactful and effective - I wasn’t aware of the extent of negative things they’ve done, and being from the UK I wasn’t aware of the gravity of the situation with the ICE topic.

Instead of treating me like scum and speaking about me like this, consider handling things a little more the way Jake has.

I am on board with you now, and have changed my opinion now that new information has come to my attention.

I recently turned away a recruiter from Facebook because they've reached the point where their constant privacy violations outweigh everything else

Agree wholeheartedly - I additionally have turned away a recruiter from Revolut because of their unethical tactics around the treatment of their employees, along with their dubious activities around banking licensing, recruitment, and general outlook on work ethic.

I get your point about other companies like the one you've mentioned fighting human trafficking without also enabling ICE to round up immigrants. I'm not sure it changes my viewpoint though, as I think there is room for more than one single organisation to tackle problems, so I still see it as a big positive for Palantir to be tackling this.

I don't comment on things as much as I used to a few years ago, but I felt compelled to comment on this because it feels like people today are a little too quick to trash companies for not being perfect - I'd love it if every company had the ethical standpoint of Patagonia, but the reality is that most companies do not, but it doesn't mean that they have nothing good about them. If we trash every company that isn't ethically perfect we will probably lose a LOT of positive value.

I guess you already summed it up in your first line: "Obviously nothing is totally homogenous, and we all have to draw our own lines about at what point one part tips the scales for the rest".

Perhaps my line just isn't as far left as some others...

I think you have oversimplified a little. Do you know if Palantir have done more bad than good? If you do, how do you know that? Right now the only perspective I have is this negative piece surrounding ICE, and the positive aspect I've been told by my friend who used the software.

If Palantir have a net positive impact on the world, I would argue that decrying them is puritanical nonsense. So I'm reserving judgement until I know more.

I agree that this is a great reason to avoid being aligned with a company. Just playing a little devils advocate here... One of my closest friends worked for a government agency for years, and a big part of his work was based on using Palantir to help them recognise financial crime, specifically around human trafficking. Obviously I don't know details of his work, but as I'm in tech, this was a conversation that came up during some of our talks over dinner.

Yes - Palantir has played a part in some terrible things, but they have also done some amazing things like helping reduce human trafficking. Is it worth decrying them entirely based on part of their work? Even if other parts of their work are overwhelmingly positive?

I'm a little conflicted here...

I could be wrong, but didn't about.me do exactly this as well? What's the difference?