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

Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

bitonic.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#21

Post by radagaisus »

It made me both LOL and think. We are doing a snazzy crazy UI in the admin panel. But the thing is, we don't want people to use it. That sounds strange, but we optimized our convention, and we do allow people to configure stuff by themselves, but we don't want to motivate them to do so. An input field is crying for you to put something there. A little edit button in the corner not so much. And the added bonus is that we can hide all those ugly forms until they are really needed.

Also, think about an experience that was the exact opposite of this post. You thought about something ('where is the delete button?') and you 'gambled' where that button will show up, or what touch move you should use - think how awesome the filling was when you were correct.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#22

Post by modeless »

That isn't the "delete contact" button. Did he even try it? The "delete contact" button is in the toolbar, which makes perfect sense. The trash can next to the name field simply clears the name field. So why not always show it? This is not just the "edit contact" screen, it's also the "view contact" screen, and cluttering it up with trash cans next to every field would absolutely detract from the scannability of the page when you're not editing. Why not have separate pages for viewing and editing? That's bad for usability too; it invites mode errors.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#23

Post by radagaisus »

geuis wrote: post #20

I'd like to add 2 other sites to this list with horrible mobile interfaces that frequently show up on HN. extremetech.com and geek.com Extreme Tech's mobile site is totally unusable. They have a very crummy interface, instituted with javascript, that overrides the simple scrolling ability built into the browser and overlay it with a system that tries pseudo-pagination. If they would simply get rid of their attempt at…

position: fixed; is long as you use percents. Thing is position: fixed doesn't even work on iOS: https://gist.github.com/1196262

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#24

Post by geuis »

radagaisus wrote: post #23
geuis wrote: post #20

I'd like to add 2 other sites to this list with horrible mobile interfaces that frequently show up on HN. extremetech.com and geek.com Extreme Tech's mobile site is totally unusable. They have a very crummy interface, instituted with javascript, that overrides the simple scrolling ability built into the browser and overlay it with a system that tries pseudo-pagination. If they would simply get rid of their attempt at…

position: fixed; is long as you use percents. Thing is position: fixed doesn't even work on iOS: https://gist.github.com/1196262

position: fixed was added in iOS 5. However, it becomes unstuck when pinch/zooming.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#25

Post by templaedhel »

geuis wrote: post #20

I'd like to add 2 other sites to this list with horrible mobile interfaces that frequently show up on HN. extremetech.com and geek.com Extreme Tech's mobile site is totally unusable. They have a very crummy interface, instituted with javascript, that overrides the simple scrolling ability built into the browser and overlay it with a system that tries pseudo-pagination. If they would simply get rid of their attempt at…

extremetech.com uses onswipe.

Onswipe sucks.

You can read people lamenting onswipe here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2699610.

Onswipe benefits no one. It makes the content unreadable, and doesn't add any value for anyone except themselves.

I don't read sites that use onswipe, in part because I want to boycott them, but mainly because I simply cannot get the UI to work. I suggest you avoid them too.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#26

Post by sunchild »

I've always thought that reveal-on-hover controls makes perfect sense when you present a list of similar things. In that case, showing one edit button, one delete button, and possibly a detail button is too much noise.

My basic rule is, if there's more than one or two of the same control, then it should be hidden.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#27

Post by dvdhsu »

stephth wrote: post #18
droithomme wrote: post #4

Thanks so much for this article. Hidden interface elements that only appear when hovering over a secret spot like it's some kind of easter egg is one of the most frustrating things I have seen. It's not really user interface design so much as it is user interface abject failure and total ignorance of how interfaces work . I refuse to call anything so dysfunctional design! This has been sneaking into desktop applicati…

My work involves designing interfaces and this discussion could help me understand this topic better; but like the author of the article, your post shows some intense frustration towards rollover-only elements, but none made it very evident to me as to why it's so frustrating and why it's so "stupid". We all experience things differently, and I'd love to picture a perspective where it's so frustrating. Here's how I s…

I don't know anything about design. The solution that I propose seems obvious though; am I missing something?

> Too many elements are a distraction.

> What is the affordance of invisibility?

There is a middle though: instead of either making it invisible OR cluttered, couldn't you just design it with a small clue, such as an arrow, which would open a drop-down menu when rolled over (on a computer) or tapped on (on a touch device)?

A drop-down menu with a small icon to prompt the user would hit the middle between simplicity and obnoxious prompting.

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#28

Post by [deleted] »

geuis wrote: post #20

I'd like to add 2 other sites to this list with horrible mobile interfaces that frequently show up on HN. extremetech.com and geek.com Extreme Tech's mobile site is totally unusable. They have a very crummy interface, instituted with javascript, that overrides the simple scrolling ability built into the browser and overlay it with a system that tries pseudo-pagination. If they would simply get rid of their attempt at…

[deleted]

Re: Open Letter to sites with annoying interfaces

#29

Post by droithomme »

stephth wrote: post #18
droithomme wrote: post #4

Thanks so much for this article. Hidden interface elements that only appear when hovering over a secret spot like it's some kind of easter egg is one of the most frustrating things I have seen. It's not really user interface design so much as it is user interface abject failure and total ignorance of how interfaces work . I refuse to call anything so dysfunctional design! This has been sneaking into desktop applicati…

My work involves designing interfaces and this discussion could help me understand this topic better; but like the author of the article, your post shows some intense frustration towards rollover-only elements, but none made it very evident to me as to why it's so frustrating and why it's so "stupid". We all experience things differently, and I'd love to picture a perspective where it's so frustrating. Here's how I s…

Your understanding of the term affordance, as inferred from your usage of it, is not the standard use. You use it as if it means the reason for something. Affordance is a clue something gives regarding its use. Doors with handles are pulled, with plates are pushed. Just seeing the interface component intrinsically describes its use. This is not possible for invisible components, therefore they have no affordance at all. Saying they have a reason in the designer's mind, to declutter an interface and make it all pretty and clean, is not related to saying they have an affordance, which is that they show the user how to use them. Buttons look pushable. Scroll bars look draggable. Invisible elements don't look anything.

"Your brain is able to predict that if you don't see it, it might very well be rollover-only."

This statement is so wrong I don't even know how to react to it or steer you away from this sort of thinking. I'm just completely taken aback. Not trying to be argumentative or anything, but no no no no no. No, the user is not going to intuit that the function must be invisible because he can't see it. Arg.

Here is the proof. Usability testing.

Post reply on HN