Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UX clichés

uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: UX clichés

#21

Post by zachrose »

cuddlecake wrote: post #18
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #3

I'd love to see a similar list for software engineering. - if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written - every function must fit a single screen

Everytime my co-worker tries to mention the "Pareto-Principle" (a.k.a. "Please let's not waste time on this, because it's frontend and I don't care about frontend") and "Single Source of Truth" (a.k.a. "let's expose our DB as directly as possible"), my soul barfs.

I’ve used “single source of truth” to explain what I like about Redux/the Elm Architecture. Yeah it shouldn’t mean anything about access or indirection but it’s still a decent idea, no?

Re: UX clichés

#22

Post by all2 »

cuddlecake wrote: post #18
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #3

I'd love to see a similar list for software engineering. - if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written - every function must fit a single screen

Everytime my co-worker tries to mention the "Pareto-Principle" (a.k.a. "Please let's not waste time on this, because it's frontend and I don't care about frontend") and "Single Source of Truth" (a.k.a. "let's expose our DB as directly as possible"), my soul barfs.

I always thought single source of truth applied to documentation. It doesn't make sense used in terms of UI or anything beyond "I need info, where do I look?"

Re: UX clichés

#23

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

usea wrote: post #14
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #3

I'd love to see a similar list for software engineering. - if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written - every function must fit a single screen

- if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written Does this rule cover all code? Do your tests, which are code themselves, not need their own tests? If not, what is special about a test that you know it's correct, when there is no faith in in non-test code? Is it possible to write your program entirely out of the special "test" code, so that it's always correct and doesn't need to b…

Well, the cliche apparently tries to cover all the code, which, as you correctly said, is non-practical.

The problem is that, like all other cliches, it sounds very convincing and it may take quite some time for the young inexperienced mind to rebuff it.

Re: UX clichés

#24

Post by wumms »

tyingq wrote: post #6
tlarkworthy wrote: post #4

My favourite business cliche is a diagram with three or four things in a circle. I thought about it so much I know think the circular process is an inevitable consequence of reality. Still, the business ones are usually pretty vacuuous.

I'm thankful that the words "paradigm" and "synergy" have been mocked enough that business people avoid them now.

Now they are leveraging a lot.

Re: UX clichés

#25

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

all2 wrote: post #22
cuddlecake wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime my co-worker tries to mention the "Pareto-Principle" (a.k.a. "Please let's not waste time on this, because it's frontend and I don't care about frontend") and "Single Source of Truth" (a.k.a. "let's expose our DB as directly as possible"), my soul barfs.

I always thought single source of truth applied to documentation. It doesn't make sense used in terms of UI or anything beyond "I need info, where do I look?"

It can be applied to pretty much anything. In most cases it's quite reasonable (there should be one and only one list of users of the system), but taken to the extreme (there should be only one list of messages your application may ever give to the user) can hinder the development a lot.

Re: UX clichés

#26

Post by tyingq »

wumms wrote: post #24
tyingq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thankful that the words "paradigm" and "synergy" have been mocked enough that business people avoid them now.

Now they are leveraging a lot.

Scaled agile is my current pet peeve. "Value Streams" and "Program Increments" and a "distilled" book that's 500+ pages.

Re: UX clichés

#27

Post by Zarel »

These are overall really accurate depictions of what life in UX is like.

I do have a comment on this one:

> “Users don’t read”

> An overly used argument to convince clients and stakeholders to cut copy length in half. If you made this far to this article, you’re living proof that this statement is untrue.

The real principle here is that users don't read anything that doesn't look like it will help them do what they're trying to do.

In the case of the article: Sure, I read the article, because I wanted to read the article. But notice I didn't read the titlebar, the subtitle, the author, the nav, the footer, the newsletter subscription form...

Someone reading copy probably wants to know something about your product. Depending on what they want to know, they might skim around the page looking for the most relevant thing – for instance, looking for a header named "Specs" when trying to find battery life.

Making your copy shorter will certainly make that task easier and save their time, and it'll probably make it less likely that they'll decide they didn't want to know things about your product that much.

Re: UX clichés

#28

Post by open-source-ux »

Not a UX cliche as such, but a frequently used phrase:

A carefully curated collection of resources

Translation: a list of links

Even better if you can shoehorn “hand-picked” in there (A hand-picked collection of curated resources to help you learn [technology])

Presumably the hand-picked links are always preferable over the, er, robot-picked ones.

I wonder what a real museum curator must make of it all (I presume they don’t really care).

Re: UX clichés

#29

Post by jonahx »

eckza wrote: post #20
jonahx wrote: post #16

The quoted aphorisms, in my personal experience, aren't used for the reasons being imputed. It feels like forced satire. For example: > "Content is king" - A pretty strong argument to convince everyone to push the deadline because you haven’t received the content that will go on the page you are designing. I've heard this a lot, but never from a designer trying to push a deadline. It's used to say "stop wasting time…

... that’s because the author clearly states, at the bottom of the article, that it’s satire.

> This is a satire article, where I use humor, irony, and exaggeration to invite reflection.

Except good satire uses exaggeration to lampoon things that are (at least partially) true in reality.

Whereas for half the examples here my reaction was, "No one has ever said that for that reason."

Re: UX clichés

#30

Post by jasonhansel »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #3

I'd love to see a similar list for software engineering. - if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written - every function must fit a single screen

I could add an entire 10-page rant about people who insist on the Liskov substitution principle.
Post reply on HN