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

If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

blog.maxrudberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#61

Post by evalapply »

zbowling wrote: post #14
btn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of irks I have with "slight visual cues and subtle animations" is that they assume all users will give the same amount of attention and have the same reasoning process as the designer does. They then call the design "obvious", as if that is an objective quality---but even a short conversation (or usability study) with a sample of their users will tell them it's anything but.

Nothing wrong with being bold and trying new ideas but obvious is only really qualifiable via user testing. It's simple thing to do to see if your product is actually usable. My method is to get 3 random craigslist people and pay them $50 bucks to play with the app for an hour. Record them struggling and have them talk through their thoughts and how they use your app. You will learn more from that experience than any…

Rather than going through Craigslist, at my last startup we used http://www.usertesting.com/ - $39 bucks and the user testing video is all yours. Pretty decent.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#62

Post by andyfleming »

Part of the issue is we are dealing with such a wide audience that this opinion is valid for some and not for others.

With an app like Clear, I have 0 trouble using it and love the minimalist approach and simple interactions. I have no trouble using the app or remembering which gestures do what. Some older than me, and likely most all younger than me would feel the same way (if they use or were to use the app).

When you are analyzing it, it is easy to point out things wrong with it, but when you use it, it just feels so right.

+1 for real life user testing

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#63

Post by sublimit »

The article's right, and in fact, I thought it was common sense. Like, interface design 101. In the end, a graphical interface is just an intuitive way to use the application's functions. If using the interface is enough of a task that you need a tutorial to use that, it kind of defeats the point of intuitive access. Just let me use your application and get the interface out of the way.

Then I came to the comments and everyone was complaining. I didn't know people liked hand-holding so much.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#64

Post by ebf »

enraged_camel wrote: post #39
ebf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To continue using the iPhone as an example, I realized that after two years, my Dad never realized that double clicking brings up the app switcher. I agree that it is better if you don't need a walkthrough, but I wouldn't say that you "blew it" if your app needs one. If a 30 second tutorial let's the user do very powerful and intuitive things, things that may save the user time over the long run, than maybe it is oka…

Not really. The app switcher is not the only way to switch apps. In fact, it is the more difficult of the two. It makes you click the home button twice, then tap the app you want once - versus click the home button once, and then the app you want once. Three clicks/taps versus two. As such, it is not a huge deal at all that it is not intuitive. Same thing with double-tap to zoom. Not terribly intuitive, but that's no…

Number of steps is not necessarily and indication of the speed and ease of the action. Steps != a good metric to judge a UI by. Would you really say that a double click is equivalent in cost two a single click then finding the app icon and clicking on it?

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#65

Post by jimbokun »

Jare wrote: post #27
btn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of irks I have with "slight visual cues and subtle animations" is that they assume all users will give the same amount of attention and have the same reasoning process as the designer does. They then call the design "obvious", as if that is an objective quality---but even a short conversation (or usability study) with a sample of their users will tell them it's anything but.

Exactly. The 'obvious' lock screen camera thing on the iPhone is a perfect example of something that I haven't seen anyone figure out on their own. It doesn't look or behave like anything else on the iPhone, including the only other interactive element in that same lock screen. Once you DO know, the cues are nice reminders. The Pudding Monsters example is terrible too, as it precisely a UI walkthrough. Minimal, becau…

When I read the part about how the iPhone camera icon worked, I pulled out my iPhone and tried it. I didn't understand before then how to get directly to the camera from the lock screen.

I think I had even read about it, but never bothered to try it until now.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#66

Post by jerols »

There are lots of downsides to walkthroughs.

They lack context.

They make things seem more complicated than they are.

They're often skipped.

People forget.

Folks think the screenshots are the app and try to interact with them (seriously!)

So basically, they're not a dependable way to teach stuff. On the other hand, they can definitely be helpful for quickly laying out an app's value proposition and, in some cases, can provide an important layer of instruction.

Apps like Clear purposely sacrifice discoverability for minimalism and fun. In some cases, progressive disclosure and visual cues might change the nature of the app and a walkthrough may be helpful. But Phill Ryu himself admitted that the walkthrough was a band-aid and I think we would all do well to think about how we can do better in the future.

The point is, I think there is a ton of room for innovation in the space of teaching UIs but we should keep all the chips on the table. Experiment, do user testing, but don't categorically exclude options from the table.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#67

Post by jgenius07 »

ary wrote: post #6

This is utter nonsense. Spend even a small amount of time with someone who works outside of the computer hardware/software industry and observe how and why they use a smart phone or computer. UI walkthroughs are not only necessary, but desired. They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone and "showing" them how something works. As the OP correctly notes there is a very heavy reliance on mimicry for most lea…

no way. it all boils down to this: When you open a newly bought iPhone then you want to see the device first after unboxing and not a bunch of how to guides. your attention is seeking the device and not how-to-make-it-work.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#68

Post by codyko »

ary wrote: post #6

This is utter nonsense. Spend even a small amount of time with someone who works outside of the computer hardware/software industry and observe how and why they use a smart phone or computer. UI walkthroughs are not only necessary, but desired. They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone and "showing" them how something works. As the OP correctly notes there is a very heavy reliance on mimicry for most lea…

I disagree. UI walkthroughs are like instruction manuals. Some people read them, but most just toss them aside and learn about the product by using it. I think there definitely needs to be some sort of help section within the app that the user can refer to when needed, but for the most part UI walkthroughs are just barriers of entry. I would even argue that most UI walkthroughs are pretty overwhelming for the average user.

Re: If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it

#69

Post by Tuvaloon »

rimantas wrote: post #56
ary wrote: post #6

This is utter nonsense. Spend even a small amount of time with someone who works outside of the computer hardware/software industry and observe how and why they use a smart phone or computer. UI walkthroughs are not only necessary, but desired. They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone and "showing" them how something works. As the OP correctly notes there is a very heavy reliance on mimicry for most lea…

> They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone > and "showing" them how something works. Yup. That's the point. In the best case you should not show how something works it should be obvious or very easy to discover.

Try that on a 4inch 2dimensional object with a target audience of children through elderly, moron through genius, and tell us how well that works for you.
Post reply on HN