101–110 of 217 posts
Ironically the site itself breaks the 3rd listed law, Jakob's law that states "Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know." because it breaks the back button. When navigating to a law and then hitting back the site sends you to the top of the list again. -
Earlier quoted context omitted.
331K transferred. Less than 1K of actual readable text. In the about section, the author brags about using Sketch, Gulp, SASS, Nunjucks, and a third-party font. Seriously? He couldn't have just envisioned that thing in his head and put it straight to code?
> He couldn't have just envisioned that thing in his head and put it straight to code? That's a pretty snobby thing to say. So what they needed to design something in Sketch. So what they used Sass and Gulp. If you're deriding someone for using a tool to help them with something, can you be derided for using a napkin to sketch an algorithm or something?
It's like buying 300-some-odd napkins and a similar number of pens so you can scribble a phone number on one.
After all the criticism here I took a shot of paraphrasing the website in a page length post: https://yozy.net/2018/01/10-laws-of-ux-digested/ A kind of an opinionated tl;dr
After all the criticism here I took a shot of paraphrasing the website in a page length post: https://yozy.net/2018/01/10-laws-of-ux-digested/ A kind of an opinionated tl;dr
I think the problem people are struggling with is that it's a site created mostly for fun and delight, but the message is about "UX", which people generally think of as a way to maximize efficiency.
Products don't always need to be relentlessly efficient to be considered useful or "good". Some products are created for you to just enjoy.
Did anyone else enjoy it for what it was? I get the criticisms, you want the web to be homogenised and free from any form of expression that doesn't present every piece of information in it's most human-machine digestible form, I get it. But it was pretty simple to use and the flair was minimal. I don't understand the pitchforks. There's a few minor annoyances like the back button not working as expected, but they ar…
For a website all about UX, the site is almost impossible to use (at least on mobile), both from an intuitiveness perspective and from a technical one. I am entirely unsure what I’m supposed to click on, if what I’m seeing is an animation or a loading progress bar, the back button gave me a blank, black page, and everything on the site would be better if it were simply static html without all this JavaScript garbage…
> I am entirely unsure what I’m supposed to click on
As a tangent, I wonder if we'll be stuck with "click" being a very common word to use to refer to following links when it makes no sense when in the context of a touch screen. English is littered with words like that, so it's possible it's here to stay, but occasionally (rarely, I admit), it jumps out at me as oddly out of place as it did here, even through it's entirely obvious what was being communicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He couldn't have just envisioned that thing in his head and put it straight to code? That's a pretty snobby thing to say. So what they needed to design something in Sketch. So what they used Sass and Gulp. If you're deriding someone for using a tool to help them with something, can you be derided for using a napkin to sketch an algorithm or something?
I believe the author is being derided for being inefficient to the tune of 33000% or so. It's like buying 300-some-odd napkins and a similar number of pens so you can scribble a phone number on one.
Sketch doesn't add to final size. Neither does Gulp. Sass and Nunjucks might, but it's a website. They tend to need HTML and CSS.
For a website all about UX, the site is almost impossible to use (at least on mobile), both from an intuitiveness perspective and from a technical one. I am entirely unsure what I’m supposed to click on, if what I’m seeing is an animation or a loading progress bar, the back button gave me a blank, black page, and everything on the site would be better if it were simply static html without all this JavaScript garbage…
I clicked on one of the book covers and ended up with an abstract full screen animation that ran for five seconds before I figured out it was a full screen page header. I'm confident that web design is the way it is mostly as a means to keep the people that work with it employed. A simple, straight forward implementation with a little color and layout to make it stand out would have been much easier to navigate and d…
I work with web designers and can corroborate that.
Most of the time, their product is sold, negotiated and approved before anyone has actually used it. An unusable mess can be a "successful" project, while a usable product can be completely kiboshed and not even paid for or used. This pushes the emphasis towards beauty instead of functionality, often to the latter's extreme detriment.
This gets worse when the stakeholder has some pet attribute they believe is important, especially "cleanliness." These "clean" designs mindlessly strip away anything that can physically be stripped away, without regard to its importance. As long as the design still kind of reminds the client of their company, they don't see it as a problem.