11–20 of 79 posts
Delightfulness? I'm seeing some indication "delightness" may be a word (can't say 100%)...but it seems a poor substitution for IMO the natural version of it
Delightfulness? I'm seeing some indication "delightness" may be a word (can't say 100%)...but it seems a poor substitution for IMO the natural version of it
I parent completely differently than most, but this top three really gets me: - Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it How do kids learn to read without exposure? - Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space But again, how do you teach kids to read? - Text is visually unattractive and off-putt…
I notice the app does actually use text, e.g. whenever a tool is selected it seems to describe what it does (with a few words). This doesn't seem obviously wrong? If you make not being able to read blocking - children who can't read won't use it. If you make reading merely enhance the experience, now there's motivation to learn how to read? I'm not a child psychologist or anything, or even a parent, I don't know what…
It’s not that they can’t, it’s just not fun. Like when I play video games and not liking too much text before the action starts, but with shorter attention spans.
The age group included also has a lot of innocence that should be protected/balanced against future expectations, depending on where they are. There’s a lot of space and utility to letting kids be kids, they trust you more IMO when you do, making later lessons stick better. YMMV
I parent completely differently than most, but this top three really gets me: - Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it How do kids learn to read without exposure? - Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space But again, how do you teach kids to read? - Text is visually unattractive and off-putt…
Kids can be much more willing to endure not understanding everything as long as there is something motivating them to go forward, in this case cool skeletons, adventure and so on.
These principles are good for all ages. Similar to how designing for handicapped users is generally better for everyone (see Good Grips).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I notice the app does actually use text, e.g. whenever a tool is selected it seems to describe what it does (with a few words). This doesn't seem obviously wrong? If you make not being able to read blocking - children who can't read won't use it. If you make reading merely enhance the experience, now there's motivation to learn how to read? I'm not a child psychologist or anything, or even a parent, I don't know what…
I’m a parent and agree with the assertion that text is visually unattractive and off-putting to most children. I’ve read to my kid (pre K) a lot (a lot), and he can read (a little), but he took more interest in learning to read through an app-based game that applied this principle, in teaching reading skills (Poio read). It’s not that they can’t, it’s just not fun. Like when I play video games and not liking too much…
It's a feedback loop because then of course toys are designed to look more and more like toys.
I parent completely differently than most, but this top three really gets me: - Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it How do kids learn to read without exposure? - Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space But again, how do you teach kids to read? - Text is visually unattractive and off-putt…
if you want quick usage a good graphic is faster than text for simple concept even in the best readers. if you have complex concepts eventually text is better but for the majority of ui text is worse than good graphics for the great reader, and many adults are not great readers.
you also shouldn't assume any language. a little effort with non text based and your app doesn't need expensive translation.
of course a learn to read app needs to provide text. However for most apps text is a sign that you didn't spend enough time in ux design.
I parent completely differently than most, but this top three really gets me: - Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t read it How do kids learn to read without exposure? - Text takes up valuable space that could be used for better graphics or aesthetically pleasing empty space But again, how do you teach kids to read? - Text is visually unattractive and off-putt…
I would however agree with the article, if we were talking about adult. Previously I worked for a webshop and good percentage of our customer could not or would not read. Sure a few have honest to god dyslexia and struggle to use you site if you use to much text, but even excluding those you'd still end up with a bunch of illiterates who will ignore any amount of text and just look at the pretty pictures and price. You might as well design certain sites for the dyslexic and avoid having to attempt to provide textual guides to morons who refuse to read but will complain at any opportunity.
We where dragged to the ombudsman for a subscription service (which I'd agree was stupid, but we never attempted to trick anyone). The case was dropped when we showed that the purchasing flow said subscription and mentioned the price at least nine times before asking for your credit card info. A number of customers apparently missed that because the lower price was tied to a subscription service.
The article is correct, but it doesn't only apply to children: "Text does not actually provide guidance to a large percentage of your user base as they can’t (won't) read it"
These principles are good for all ages. Similar to how designing for handicapped users is generally better for everyone (see Good Grips).