The hamburger menu on the web is what the touch screen are for cars. You can fit anything on there, no matter what the future might hold. No need to think about your content too hard.
And in fact the designer is really not supposed to think about the content too hard. It's not how we do web. This is how we do: There's a CMS and you can add and remove items. How many? As many as the client later discovers they want.
It makes sense, kinda. It solves issues for different parties that are involved in the process. Like with touch screens in cars, we get something for what we give and it might just be the best we can reasonably do given constraints.
> The hamburger menu on the web is what the touch screen are for cars.
I thought this was a brilliant analogy. But you don't seem to have meant it.
> Like with touch screens in cars, we get something for what we give and it might just be the best we can reasonably do given constraints.
Touchscreens in cars are a huge step back from what we had in the 80s. They're far more despised than the hamburger menu. Complaints about the hamburger menu generally take a tone of disgruntled resignation. Complaints about car touchscreens are burning outrage.
There is no way touchscreens in cars can be the best we can do given constraints, because they're much worse than what they replaced.
> There is no way touchscreens in cars can be the best we can do given constraints, because they're much worse than what they replaced.
It is not about how poorly touchscreens perform against what they replace, but what they enable: A continuously developed car, built around software (updates).
And in fact the designer is really not supposed to think about the content too hard. It's not how we do web. This is how we do: There's a CMS and you can add and remove items. How many? As many as the client later discovers they want.
It makes sense, kinda. It solves issues for different parties that are involved in the process. Like with touch screens in cars, we get something for what we give and it might just be the best we can reasonably do given constraints.
It's just not that great.