This is a good point, and often the reality - it’s unfortunate that it is being downvoted. But it’s a defeatist stance. It’s a central part of the designer’s job to contend that human factors are important, and explain what the effects of shortcuts and poor user experience are on the value of the product and the well-being of its users.
If you’re lucky your client hired you because they, too, care and believe design to be important, but that’s far from a given.
Well yeah, but if the person who is in charge of the modal is the implementer, not the designer, then they may not have the expertise to design a good ui.
And many designers are artists ("designers") not ux engineers, so their main goal is to make something that shows their artistic skill - they're going to be trained in design packages, not designing a good ui.
(I mean, when was the last time you saw a clickable button on a modern user interface? nowadays it's just "guess what this shade of grey means")
> if the person who is in charge of the modal is the implementer, not the designer, then they may not have the expertise to design a good ui
Isn’t the obvious fix there to let the designer design and the implementer implement? Obviously if the designer is kept out of the loop completely they may not even be in a position to argue for the importance of good design (or just any design process), but then it shouldn’t be surprising that the outcome is bad design.
Well for many programs there isn't really any separate designer, particularly for line of business apps. That was really where I was coming from - the person who designs the app is simply someone who was trained in coding.
In any case, as I said, you get a problem if the person who designs the app is simply someone who was trained in coding, and you get a problem if they're simply someone who was trained in art.
If you’re lucky your client hired you because they, too, care and believe design to be important, but that’s far from a given.