11–20 of 132 posts
Bad UX, sure. But that person dun goofed.
Add spacing and then add more. It won't make it a masterpiece but it'll prevent misclicks and make the UI easier to read and understand.
Also, use headings like "Amber Alerts", "Weather" and "War".
And, use semantic titles like "[TEST] Tsunami" or "ALERT! - Tsunami"
I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes. My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see w…
It doesn't even need that. It should start by grouping the options by severity - separate the real alerts from the test alerts via section headers and you solve 99% of the problem.
Given the cost of a mis-click, I'd also implement a Github-style confirmation box that can't just be subconciously clicked-through ("To confirm that you wish to send a PACOM Alert, type 'pacom alert'").
[1]: https://twitter.com/iamlucamilan/status/953201356545974272
I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes. My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see w…
Combined with a confirmation dialog like this: https://twitter.com/Ajedi32/status/953303114995597312
The UX in most software made for the government is terrible. At the end of the day, I think anyone clicking any button in that list should have been well aware of what those buttons do especially since clicking that button was a routine part of the shift change process in that shop. Bad UX, sure. But that person dun goofed.
I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes. My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see w…
It doesn't even need that. It should start by grouping the options by severity - separate the real alerts from the test alerts via section headers and you solve 99% of the problem.
I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes. My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see w…
- What if someone wants to click the link, but a colleague walks in and taps his shoulder to ask for something, moving his mouse in that instant to a different link
- What if at the moment he clicks the link, he lifts his mouse slowly cause human, and the cursor off the mouse jumps to another link whilst in the clicking.
- What if he simply clicks the wrong one, because he had an argument with his wife and his head is not quite there.
There is absolutely no reason to let this depend on human interpretation skill, if you have a frigging computer + basic markup. __________________________________________________________
Prefix 1 menu with 2 BUTTONS
__________________________________________________________
(Test scenario's)
SHIT IS GOING DOWN TAKE COVER WAS NICE KNOWING YOU (press this only in case off real emergency) __________________________________________________________
You start with the smallest and clearest option off choice that is OBJECTIVELY POSSIBLE which is the choice off 2.
If you click the wrong button due to spasms you can still go back.
Even better is make the resulting list for "REAL" have a BLOOD RED BACKGROUND COLOR.
Colours have proven a billion times over to work for traffic/brake lights, and the chance you do not notice bright red staring in your face is VERY UNLIKELY.
I specifically say red, because if your an adult in the west, this specific memory " red is danger/alert " is strongly ingrained. Alzheimer might not even be able to touch it.
The fix was to:
> …In the past three tapes, one for the test and two for actual emergencies, were hanging on three labeled hooks above the transmitter… In the future only the test tape will be left near the transmitter. The two emergency tapes [will be] be sealed in clearly marked envelopes and placed inside a nearby cabinet.
http://conelrad.blogspot.com/2010/09/code-word-hatefulness-g...
Taking the opposite side side of the argument, good UX only matters for inexperienced employees. People that mindlessly click are going to mindlessly click "yes" on the confirmation dialog
Having yes/no labels on buttons, or this kind of random labeled links in haphazard order is always bad. Experienced users may not do errors, but their life would still be better if the UX was good. UX is the same as accessibility, if it is good it does not bother you but it can always help, even if you think you do not need it.