I think he makes really good points and I liked the suggestions for alternatives. I worked on a project that relied a lot on Modals early on because of the design framework we inherited. It started with a single modal for settings, but then relied on modals opening modals out of necessity. It quickly became "modal inception" as he said. One modal could be ok, but it can quickly become untenable.

I get it, but it was still painful to look at

Hi,

Nice portfolio. I think it's cool you can code as well as design. I'll just skip to a couple criticisms for you.

• I think the 3 cases is a good start, and I like that the portfolio concept is simple. However I think you can clean up the typography to make it easier to scan. The summary about yourself at the top that's narrowly aligned left, then the alternating side titles, all that doesn't mix that well because it takes the reader too much time to figure out what's going on. Since each case study is visually complicated with the image collage plus the title and description on alternating sides, overall it's overly designed. I think you should make the titles on the same side of the page and try and make each case study bar simpler. Also since there is an animated background that adds to the overall visual complexity and makes it more about the design than the content, which again is like a meal that's made too hard to eat. Even if the ingredients are good.

• The contents of each case study has different places where the text starts adding further visual complexity, rather than starting the text on the same line.

• "Selected Work" is really close to the actual selected work itself, and since it's on the opposite side as the title for the first case, it looks like it's actually part of the content rather than a section header.

• I personally don't like to read Medium articles for a variety of reasons. And they're probably not popular reasons. But my opinion is that if the case studies were contained in this site it would be easier for me to read each one and navigate back. Sending me away to these really big articles seems like too much investment in a portfolio. I guess it depends on what you're trying to get out of your portfolio. But I like ones that are really simple, and have a couple quick stories that I can get through in a few minutes. This seems more like a 1-2 hour investment to read everything here.

Overall I really like the concept of your 3 skill sets. But I would make the design section a lot simpler, especially typographically, and I would also consider getting rid of the animated background. Probably since you spent a lot of time here it's easy to think other people will also spend a lot of time here. But rather than designing for that, my humble suggestion is to design for a 3-5 minute read and have a good feeling and impact for the first time visitor.

Hey yeah I noticed the same thing but https://material.io/devices/ lists both devices as 411/731dp. The math for these devices just never find a source of truth, everywhere I look there is some weird rounding going on. Even if you did what I did and undo their math of how they arrived at 2.6 it doesn't add up. They list the dpi of Pixel at 441. 441/160 = 2.75625, not 2.6.

Anyone know why 2.6 and 3.5 were chosen when, if you do the math, they are closer to 2.75 and 3.4?

The Pixel:

• The Pixel has a ppi/dpi of 441.

• mdpi by default is considered 160

• 441/160 = 2.75625, not "2.6".

• if it were to be 2.6, you would need to do this: 441(dpi) / 2.6 = 169.615..., so rather than considering mdpi as 160 you'd have to consider it as 169.615 etc

Same goes for Pixel XL

• Has 534 pixel/in

• says it's 3.5x

• 534/160 = 3.3375

Personally I'm still not convinced that using the 2.6x or 3.5x approximate sizes (412 or 416) are better than using a multiple of 360. For one thing the math seems to work out better. I'm guessing this has to do with what happens when the mocks are rendered on a physical Pixel phone screen, or maybe because developers are using 412 or 416 dp's instead of 360 dp's. Still not fully understanding the reason behind this.

Wouldn't the extra space be scaled to fit everything horizontally?

Ok maybe I don't understand the meaning of density, because wouldn't it be easier to just use 360x640 artboards or some multiple of 360, since 1080/360 = 3, and 1440/360 = 4, vs. the repeating decimals of using 411 or 415, both of which are only close to the true number of 1080/2.6 or 1440/3.5. Including the material design spec, why aren't the @1x guidelines designed for 360/640 artboards, or 720/x artboards. It seems the piece missing in my comprehension is the 2.6x and 3.5x density information. I don't get why this piece makes us design in artboards of /2.6 or /3.5 size, instead of simply a multiple of the screen's pixel dimensions (1080 or 1440 wide). Thanks for all your explanations btw!