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

GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

patricia.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#101

Post by paddy_m »

pphysch wrote: post #98
bob1029 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People build wild shit in Excel that only they can understand. If these people are the customer, then a wild shit xlsx file is perhaps one of the better possible scenarios for requirements gathering.

I've been in this exact situation. Client provides their current workflow, implemented in a spreadsheet. The problem is they make significant concessions in their design to fit the tabular model of spreadsheets. It can be really warping, not only to GUI but also the underlying data model. Then you show them what a relational data model is capable of, and (hopefully) blow their mind.

When you get to relational models, the amount of UI you can quickly build around the django admin is staggering... if you stay in the guardrails.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#102

Post by Suppafly »

SoftTalker wrote: post #90
paddy_m wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best functional specs for a UI have come from business people building their own in excel. At a minimum they will have some idea of layout and what information should be displayed on which screens. This also lets them focus on the core information, not the styling. Building GUIs on the web, there are infinite ways to style every UI element and more attention goes to that then the actual interaction.

I'd disagree with that. People build wild shit in Excel that only they can understand. It makes sense to them because they built it. Nobody else can use it. Not all spreadsheets are like this but there are absolutely no guardrails to prevent it. Building a good GUI takes thoughtful design by someone who understands what makes a good GUI and what the goals of the interface are from the user's perspective. Someone who…

>I'd disagree with that. People build wild shit in Excel that only they can understand. It makes sense to them because they built it. Nobody else can use it.

I think the parent comment is talking about using excel as a grid based layout tool to show how they want the app to look, not implying that you should build GUIs based upon the convoluted stuff people build in excel to avoid having a dedicated app.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#103

Post by cwbrandsma »

wongarsu wrote: post #23
throwaway2037 wrote: post #17

This part is genius: > I have made GUIs many, many times and my best case scenario goes something like: > 1. A design has been made, everyone loves it. Detailed drawings have been made. > 2. The devs are told to Make It > 3. The devs Make It, exactly to spec > 4. Everyone looks at it and everyone hates it > 5. So many meetings. So much stress. This Is Terrible! What To Do? > 6. A new design is made. So much better! D…

The issue is that step 2 is wrong. Step 1 is to make a design, step 2 is to test it. Make a paper prototype and have your customer simulate working with it. If you feel fancy make a pretty prototype in Figma. If you have a good designer and cooperative costumer you can even combine step 1 and 2 with a whiteboard prototype. Ask the customer what a common task is. Draw the interface the whiteboard and ask the consumer…

* Step 2: design is "tested" with the users, later we find out the users really had no idea what was going on because they weren't really paying attention. Then the real product is delivered and they are shocked that the changes were made behind their back and without their input.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#104

Post by pier25 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #17

This part is genius: > I have made GUIs many, many times and my best case scenario goes something like: > 1. A design has been made, everyone loves it. Detailed drawings have been made. > 2. The devs are told to Make It > 3. The devs Make It, exactly to spec > 4. Everyone looks at it and everyone hates it > 5. So many meetings. So much stress. This Is Terrible! What To Do? > 6. A new design is made. So much better! D…

I think there's a figure mostly absent in these processes. Designers and devs are living in their bubble/silo and don't think like a user.

It's very rare to find someone who can understand design, UX, and code and put it all together into a cohesive vision. In my experience, if you have the UX right from the start, then the rest becomes much easier. UX is the foundation that will dictate how it has to be designed and programmed.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#105

Post by marcosdumay »

wongarsu wrote: post #23
throwaway2037 wrote: post #17

This part is genius: > I have made GUIs many, many times and my best case scenario goes something like: > 1. A design has been made, everyone loves it. Detailed drawings have been made. > 2. The devs are told to Make It > 3. The devs Make It, exactly to spec > 4. Everyone looks at it and everyone hates it > 5. So many meetings. So much stress. This Is Terrible! What To Do? > 6. A new design is made. So much better! D…

The issue is that step 2 is wrong. Step 1 is to make a design, step 2 is to test it. Make a paper prototype and have your customer simulate working with it. If you feel fancy make a pretty prototype in Figma. If you have a good designer and cooperative costumer you can even combine step 1 and 2 with a whiteboard prototype. Ask the customer what a common task is. Draw the interface the whiteboard and ask the consumer…

Yeah, step 1 is wrong too. The article goes into that.

You can't design an interface based on a partial feature-set, you need full interaction modes specified beforehand. You can't finish the details before you implement it, or even before you test. You can't have a committee of "everyones" to like it before you test.

Combining the steps isn't something "you can do", it's the one way that works.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#106

Post by aanet »

I wasn't sure where the author (Patricia) was going with the whole 'GUIs are built >= 2.5x'.. but by the end, I agree.

Discovery is fundamentally different from assembly (as in the 'factory' metaphor). And innovation (= new product product) is fundamentally about discovery (whether product/market fit, or product/user fit). Therefore, new product development is fundamentally an iterative process.

Any org trying to force-fit a 'get it right the first time' mentality on discovery/innovation has discovered (no pun) just how common failure is...

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#107

Post by nkrisc »

paddy_m wrote: post #66
bob1029 wrote: post #25

A tight iteration loop is the only solution I've seen for building high quality UI/UX. Embrace that it's going to be terrible the first few times and plan for this. We could save on cost per iteration by avoiding the layout and styling pass until the very end. These interfaces are about communicating information. Plain text and basic form submissions work just as well as anything else when you're still trying to desi…

The best functional specs for a UI have come from business people building their own in excel. At a minimum they will have some idea of layout and what information should be displayed on which screens. This also lets them focus on the core information, not the styling. Building GUIs on the web, there are infinite ways to style every UI element and more attention goes to that then the actual interaction.

It’s way easier to build a GUI for one user than it is for millions of users.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#108

Post by mmphosis »

I think most ui is borken by design possibly for perpetual income reasons. HyperCard, vb, and other easy to use and accessible builders are dead even though this what people really want. If I want a blue menu bar, I need to code markup!?!, but to stop me from creating blue menu bars, today I am forbidden from having a menu bar anyways. Crazy ideas and creatively built prototypes seem to have no place in the private ManagerFactoryClass.

One objection was that the text scrolling was line by line and Steve said “Can’t this be smooth?”. In a few seconds Dan made the change. Another more interesting objection was to the complementation of the text that was used (as today) to indicate a selection. Steve said “Can’t that be an outline?”. Standing in the back of the room, I held my breath a bit (this seemed hard to fix on the fly). But again, Dan Ingalls instantly saw a very clever way to do this (by selecting the text as usual, then doing this again with the selection displaced by a few pixels — this left a dark outline around the selection and made the interior clear).

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#109

Post by bob1029 »

mmphosis wrote: post #108

I think most ui is borken by design possibly for perpetual income reasons. HyperCard, vb, and other easy to use and accessible builders are dead even though this what people really want. If I want a blue menu bar, I need to code markup!?!, but to stop me from creating blue menu bars, today I am forbidden from having a menu bar anyways. Crazy ideas and creatively built prototypes seem to have no place in the private M…

> I think most ui is borken by design possibly for perpetual income reasons.

I don't know how the incentives really play out anymore. It's definitely self-interest in a lot of places.

I have a new theory that some user interfaces are made to be janky on purpose such that the users are constantly bathed in cortisol and made easier to subjugate with the other dark patterns.

The UI/UX for Azure instantly comes to mind as an example. By the time I've been able to ascertain that my VM is actually running, I have forgotten about the five other things I wanted to verify wrt billing, etc. Eventual consistency for something like this appears to me as an intentionally user-hostile design choice, especially in the case of Microsoft with their vast experience and talent pools.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#110

Post by tarentel »

dlivingston wrote: post #85
catmanjan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interested to hear about a high quality UI as I have never encountered one

Apple used to be very good at this, especially in the pre-iPhone OS X era. iTunes: https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/192853040 Preview: https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/wp-content/uploads/... Garage Band: https://inside.wooster.edu/technology/wp-content/uploads/sit...

Is that last one actually Garage Band? I used to use it a very long time ago and I don't remember it ever looking like that. It does, however, look basically the same as Logic does today. I'm not sure if I'd consider it a good GUI or not.
Post reply on HN