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

Laws of UX

lawsofux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: Laws of UX

#101

Post by samsolomon »

thealchemistdev wrote: post #30
nelsonenzo wrote: post #2

These seem like theories, not laws. And imho, some of it is very wrong, such as: > Purposefully adding a delay to a process can actually increase its perceived value and instill a sense of trust, even when the process itself actually takes much less time.

I experienced this first hand with the manual sync button on one of my apps. I got feedback stating it didn't work when, in reality, there was no work to be done and the interface didn't have time to display 'syncing' before it finished. The solution was to add a 50-300ms delay before the network request. Why? Because feelings and perception matter more than facts.

I see a lot of comments here about added animations because the request is too fast.

In this case I would guess the issue is not with speed but feedback. The user did something, nothing changed, so they thought it was broken.

Instead of the delay you could add a toast or some text with near the button indicating that the action actually happened.

Re: Laws of UX

#102

Post by pickingdinner »

BariumBlue wrote: post #61
pickingdinner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just math, so I will continue to elaborate. Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there? But what you're referring to is that which can offset and add to those metrics. "Mouse click" in and of itself means nothing in the context of the program. So it's the "other stuff" that pushes against the goal being accomplished in 1 click. So the…

>Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there? That's the McNamara fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy Basically: enemy bodycount is easy to measure and thus you should optimize for it. Conversely if you can't measure it, it must not be important. The fallacy is that enemy body count is not wrong per se, but oversimplified. I…

> making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others

I literally just stated how you should observe "all others". With everything important considered, you should then "count your bodies" and optimize. McNamara would agree with that.

Most UIs don't. Just take any app or program you use daily, and imagine better paths to the goals you repeat on a daily basis. If you're a UI person, you should be focused on optimizing these paths.

Re: Laws of UX

#103

Post by pickingdinner »

JohnFen wrote: post #54
pickingdinner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just math, so I will continue to elaborate. Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there? But what you're referring to is that which can offset and add to those metrics. "Mouse click" in and of itself means nothing in the context of the program. So it's the "other stuff" that pushes against the goal being accomplished in 1 click. So the…

> Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there? You might, but to do so based solely on those metrics is a mistake. That's because those metrics don't fully capture what makes a UI efficient for human use. Other things, like cognitive load, are more important. Does it matter if it only takes two clicks to do a thing if that usage path isn't one…

> solely

Not solely.

> "efficiency" in terms of what helps a person to accomplish a task in the best way possible

Correct. THEN optimize the metrics.

I didn't realize there was a myth that some users prefer slower. They don't. If they could be done they'd rather be done. Especially if this involves work. Most users that use software at their job didn't choose that software. The least we can do as engineers is let them go home to their family sooner.

Re: Laws of UX

#104

Post by pickingdinner »

JohnFen wrote: post #20
BariumBlue wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perfect UX is the interface is that displays and works exactly how the user wants and expects. The perfect UI is the interface that has the quickest, most optimal workflow to accomplish a user's tasks

> The perfect UI is the interface that has the quickest, most optimal workflow to accomplish a user's tasks I disagree with this, actually. The perfect UI is one that the user doesn't have to consciously think about when using.

You're not contradicting what you're disagreeing with.

Re: Laws of UX

#105

Post by pickingdinner »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #40
pickingdinner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. That isn't even an interface. And this is the source of so much trouble. The "developer knows best" mindset. The developer will never know exactly when I want coffee, yet so many programs assume my coffee needs are just an algorithm that I secretly obey and just don't know it yet. The best interface does nothing. It's idle and listens. Everything automatic must be fully transparent and be opt-in. Fully ex…

What you describe just means our tech is not ready yet. Not that it's not the best UI. Nobody miss having to manually change their clock for DST or after a plane trip. One day, the machine will read your mind, know you need some info, and download it into your brain. You will just know what you need to know without asking, as if it were obvious. That's the best UI. It's also the UI that will be the most abused with t…

There will always be an interface for any tool, mind reading tech or otherwise. And anything that does something against the user's will is a bad tool with a bad interface.

Re: Laws of UX

#106

Post by phatskat »

graypegg wrote: post #68
JohnFen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you build for the common denominator, a huge number of people are left out, including those with disabilities. > customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. Customizable interfaces are the only real solution -- not just for people with disabilities, but for everybody. There are a number of websites and applications that I stopped using because of UX choices I am allergic to. If they were configu…

One little thing I think makes a huge difference is just using the user agent a bit more. You can write styles at only apply in high-contrast or reduced-motion mode. Use relative text sizes so you the user agent can use a value for the root font size that isn’t 16px. Use buttons for buttons, links for links, and for dialogs etc. I’ve thought about just making more web apps that have nearly no styling, maybe just some…

One I really appreciate is having sane tab indexes and the ability to trigger things like buttons and drop-downs using the keyboard. A slick select box loses a lot of points for me if I can’t navigate and use it with just my keyboard.

Re: Laws of UX

#107

Post by phatskat »

crickey wrote: post #41
JohnMakin wrote: post #34

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build for the common denominator, these people get left out.

Agreed us vim users are serverly undercatered to.

Sites with surprise hjkl always make me smile

Re: Laws of UX

#108

Post by phatskat »

ris58h wrote: post #83
timetraveller26 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have made Dark mode an expected feature on UI's, hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces (anyone remember Foobar2000 or GMusicBrowser?). Home Assistant is a good example of such UI.

> hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces I hope we won't. Why do you need this? What issue will you solve with it?

There’s plenty of UIs that I would like to be able to either reorganize or remove parts of.

Arc Browser has Boosts which do allow for a decent amount of customization which is much appreciated.

Re: Laws of UX

#109

Post by phatskat »

graypegg wrote: post #37

Under Aesthetic-Usability Effect > 2: People are more tolerant of minor usability issues when the design of a product or service is aesthetically pleasing. I think this is true for someone’s first interaction with a thing. But if you rely on something, minor usability issues skyrocket in importance, and aesthetic importance drops really fast.

There’s an example of that in the linked write up - a user reported really enjoying colorful, full-page images…on the first use. After subsequent use, the failures of the UX made such aesthetics more annoying than useful

Re: Laws of UX

#110

Post by phatskat »

JohnFen wrote: post #86
marcosdumay wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, I do share this association, I have seen more people react this way, and I have seen more people consciously describe that association. But I've never seen anybody having this as a first reaction to some software. It needs some time to kick in.

> But I've never seen anybody having this as a first reaction to some software. It needs some time to kick in. It used to take time, but the association has become common enough that it's a red flag right at the start for me. It won't make me not try it out, of course, but it does set a certain expectation in me. The effect is strongest with websites. I think the correlation between being pretty/shiny and the site be…

I have a knee-jerk reaction to sites that reveal things or animate as I scroll down. It was cool the first time or two…years ago. Now it feels gimmicky at best, and more often it obscures the page in a way that makes me feel like I need to scroll the entire page before reading it so there’s no hidden surprises.

Of course this also boils down to intent - is the page an art thing where presentation plays a part in the interaction? Cool. But I was on a product page for a home media server that did this and it was painful - I wanted specs, testimonials, information, and I had to scroll through animations and slide-in text and all kinds of stuff to get a grip on the -product-

Post reply on HN