151–160 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basic, significant factors like screen real estate, input devices & processor speed.
If you read the reasoning against the hamburger menu (i.e. it is basically a "misc" option that doesn't indicate its contents), then you'd know that none of those factors matter here. Screen real estate isn't even usually a difference between web/native.
My summary. Tell me if I missed something. Hey, designer. I know screen real estate on mobile is extremely limited. I know it would be really nice to fill the whole screen with content and just have a little, square, "more" icon tucked in the corner. I know you've tried to establish the hamburger icon as the universal "more" icon. Too bad. Users aren't catching on as quickly as you'd like. They don't notice, understa…
It probably isn't helped by the superflat UIs that are the current fad that make it impossible to tell what elements are active or what they do.
It's the kind of thing that makes sense on phones because the screen space is so precious (although with modern phones this is becoming less and less true), but only because you're willing to trade off some usability for getting more content on the screen. For a desktop site or application where you are not space constrained it is just bad design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Stop downvoting this. This isn't even a mildly offensive or challenging view, and it provides a good counterpoint.
list of reasons people are doing dumb thing, mostly blaming the people
Can we be honest here for a second? The reason people are still using hamburger menus is because people have to make things work for phones. Phones with screens that are vastly smaller than the screens on even the smallest laptop, even for people who are hauling around the biggest phablets they can find. And people with phones want to visit the same websites they visit on their computers and there just... isn't... room. The hamburger menu gives you close to double the space to work with, from a UI point of view.
The alternatives presented are partial solutions. It may well be true that more people are reaching for the hamburger menu than truly need it. But the tab bar example from the article only scales up so far before it stops being a valid solution. And I don't know if there is a really good answer that doesn't involve rewriting the web from the ground up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly consistent in that the no-hamburger rule mainly applies to apps, not mobile-optimized web pages.
Why is that? What makes the web different in this case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep reading these articles about how awful hamburgers are but so far not a single one addresses menus that have more than 3-5 items. I manage sites that we have kicked around ideas for how to deal with the menu better, but the size of what is in that menu makes all the proposed ideas I've seen not feasible. So I'm right there with you that it is unfortunate, I wish these articles had more in way of solutions than…
I'm gonna sound like an old fart now (mostly because I am) but back in the late 90s we used to have a discipline called Information Architecture that existed to handle exactly this case. You see, Information Architecture has more to do with capital D Design, not fad, bandwagons and styles. Its about solving this exact problem. I really hope the concept of User Experience dies in a fire so we can go back to real Desig…
There's cross-over, but one "Designer" can't do it all, even if they have a good grasp of everything.
When the focus is on UX, decisions might be made about how people sign in or out. The UX expert might determine that a 2-step log out process is one step too many, but the research they gather might suggest it's nevertheless still acceptable enough to get away with. The designer makes whatever-step process look and function the best it can, without needing to scrutinise the research and testing around 2-step sign out processes.
Another example - consider the user experience of dismissing the banner that appears on some websites that have an app in iOS Safari. The little 'X' close link is tiny, way smaller than any touch button or link should be. Bad UX? Sure is. But the UX person must have data suggesting that having a stupidly small close button for that banner is worth it for the primary visual incentive to act on the promotional prompt without annoying too many people (annoys the hell out of me, but I'm not everyone).
Why do designers gravitate to extremes in these fads? Skeuomorphic! Flat design! Everything in the hamburger menu! Nothing in the hamburger menu! What's wrong with moderation? Day-to-day navigation elements shouldn't be in a hamburger menu (also, an extra 'click' for common tasks is bad), but there are plenty of non-everyday things that can go in there.
You're blaming designers , I'm blaming developers(and managers) who can't tell a good designer from a bad one and choose to work only with people that "gravitate to extremes in these fads"(ie a majority of startups) Even Google and Apple are not that dumb, they know flat design is stupid,they actually have the data to prove it, thus they kept some depth within their UIs and don't hesitate to use border shadows ,even on mobile, while trying to "refresh" their UI, because a few influential SF bloggers were bashing their "lack of minimalism".
Flat design makes absolutely no FN sense, from a UX stand point in an app on a computer. If I can't tell what I can interact with and what I can't, I'm not going to play a guess game, I'm going to move on and use something else. I'm a big proponent of skeuomorphism and I don't care how ugly it looks. It's all about usability. If it can help convey the purpose of a feature then it's a good thing.
What makes sense on a poster, a printed magazine or a book doesn't make sense for an app or a website.
Here's the core question, is this a permanent or temporary problem? I remember back in the early years of the web (mid to late '90s) and one of the most important factors in designing websites was realizing that users don't scroll. They just didn't, and if your site design relied on that fact then you'd be screwed. But users learned to scroll, and now scrolling is perhaps the most important and most universal method…
It's not really that users don't scroll, more that relevant informations should be on the top of webpages rather than in the middle or the bottom. It don't think anybody ever said that users don't scroll in 90's .