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

UX clichés

uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: UX clichés

#111

Post by muzani »

Zarel wrote: post #27

These are overall really accurate depictions of what life in UX is like. I do have a comment on this one: > “Users don’t read” > An overly used argument to convince clients and stakeholders to cut copy length in half. If you made this far to this article, you’re living proof that this statement is untrue. The real principle here is that users don't read anything that doesn't look like it will help them do what they'r…

I normally don't read the onboarding text of an app or a tutorial. It's usually saying things like "Click this next button to go to the next part".

Re: UX clichés

#112

Post by bsder »

pwthornton wrote: post #84
normalhuman wrote: post #52

I am not a designer nor a software engineer, nor a business person. I am just a (heavy) user of all sorts of software for a very long time. I am a competent coder, and I code for research and pleasure. I don't have a dog in this, let's say, professional race. Every time I spot "UX" in relation to something I use, I cringe. Not because I have anything against the idea of design, or good interfaces, or designing good i…

This is not true: "The human brain is incredibly plastic and adaptable. Unless the interface is truly absurd, most people can get used to it and never give it a second thought again." I've interviewed and observed enough users to know this is not true. There are a lot of interfaces that are suffer from issues with discoverability and understanding, and even when a user figures this stuff out one time (or is showed it…

> There are a lot of interfaces that are suffer from issues with discoverability and understanding, and even when a user figures this stuff out one time (or is showed it), the interface is not memorable.

Oh, dear, God, yes.

The "hamburger menu" is one of the worst travesties of the modern age.

Re: UX clichés

#113

Post by flukus »

bsder wrote: post #112
pwthornton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true: "The human brain is incredibly plastic and adaptable. Unless the interface is truly absurd, most people can get used to it and never give it a second thought again." I've interviewed and observed enough users to know this is not true. There are a lot of interfaces that are suffer from issues with discoverability and understanding, and even when a user figures this stuff out one time (or is showed it…

> There are a lot of interfaces that are suffer from issues with discoverability and understanding, and even when a user figures this stuff out one time (or is showed it), the interface is not memorable. Oh, dear, God, yes. The "hamburger menu" is one of the worst travesties of the modern age.

What's wrong with the hamburger menu? It seems like a good compromise of quickly accessible functionality for little screen real estate. For desktop apps with plenty of screen real estate it's crazy (looking at you gnome) but on mobiles it's fine, especially when the alternatives seem to be some sort of hidden and undiscovered slide out menu or long button press.

Re: UX clichés

#114

Post by bsder »

iheartpotatoes wrote: post #75
normalhuman wrote: post #52

I am not a designer nor a software engineer, nor a business person. I am just a (heavy) user of all sorts of software for a very long time. I am a competent coder, and I code for research and pleasure. I don't have a dog in this, let's say, professional race. Every time I spot "UX" in relation to something I use, I cringe. Not because I have anything against the idea of design, or good interfaces, or designing good i…

As a like-/counter-anecdote, I developed semiconductor CAD tools for 10 years, after spending 10 years using them. When they first started being developed with GUIs, GUI meant UI, and its oft-maligned sibling, UX, wasn't a term. In my learnings, Xt (XToolKit) started putting words and code behind the abstract patterns in the late 80's, but our tool usability suffered horribly as more and more (usually nonresizing) At…

> So much "It worked fine before, why did you change it?!?!?!?" Uhh... because a feature you use 80% of the time required 5x more clicks to get to than a feature you used 20% of the time? FML.

Well, they're not wrong because every other CAD tool simply rearranged the UI for no reason.

In addition, the problem with semiconductor CAD tools is that any feature which isn't used by everybody is effectively broken because it has zero users, to an engineering approximation. I wish my CAD tools had a "CAUTION: this feature was used N times in the last 180 days by all users of the tool where N Although, in terms of UX I've never understood why CAD tools don't use Pie menus--games adopted them eons ago. (Fusion 360 is the exception, and it's a wonderful breath of fresh air).

I'm really curious where you worked now, as I don't remember any of my VLSI CAD tools getting an effective UI makeover (and we used a lot of them). Although I'm pretty sure we skipped most Mentor tools.

Re: UX clichés

#115

Post by rileymat2 »

pwthornton wrote: post #84
normalhuman wrote: post #52

I am not a designer nor a software engineer, nor a business person. I am just a (heavy) user of all sorts of software for a very long time. I am a competent coder, and I code for research and pleasure. I don't have a dog in this, let's say, professional race. Every time I spot "UX" in relation to something I use, I cringe. Not because I have anything against the idea of design, or good interfaces, or designing good i…

This is not true: "The human brain is incredibly plastic and adaptable. Unless the interface is truly absurd, most people can get used to it and never give it a second thought again." I've interviewed and observed enough users to know this is not true. There are a lot of interfaces that are suffer from issues with discoverability and understanding, and even when a user figures this stuff out one time (or is showed it…

Minor Quibble: Power Users are real users. However, they may or may not be worth the cost to support depending on your niche.

Re: UX clichés

#116

Post by megaremote »

ivanhoe wrote: post #107

I find it amusing that his final disclaimer how "This is a satire article" really falls under the "if you have to explain a joke, it’s not that good"...

Did anyone read this and not think it is satire? I guess it is better to be safe when publishing an article, and I wouldn't describe this article as being an example of UX.

Re: UX clichés

#117

Post by megaremote »

usea wrote: post #14
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #3

I'd love to see a similar list for software engineering. - if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written - every function must fit a single screen

- if your code isn't important enough to be tested, it's not important to be written Does this rule cover all code? Do your tests, which are code themselves, not need their own tests? If not, what is special about a test that you know it's correct, when there is no faith in in non-test code? Is it possible to write your program entirely out of the special "test" code, so that it's always correct and doesn't need to b…

> Do your tests, which are code themselves, not need their own tests?

The tests of the tests is your original code. They are testing each other.

Re: UX clichés

#118

Post by csours »

Zarel wrote: post #27

These are overall really accurate depictions of what life in UX is like. I do have a comment on this one: > “Users don’t read” > An overly used argument to convince clients and stakeholders to cut copy length in half. If you made this far to this article, you’re living proof that this statement is untrue. The real principle here is that users don't read anything that doesn't look like it will help them do what they'r…

> "Users don't read"

I work on software, I read a lot.

I also go to pre-release media screeners of movies - you wait in line for a while, and you get to see a movie a few days earlier.

Anyway, the most recent movie pass (Detective Pokemon, really good by the way) had some red text in the middle. You had to redeem the pass for tickets at the theater before the screening, not wait in line. A LOT of people, including my movie buddy, did not read that red text.

If you depend on your users to read something, you will be let down very often. If you depend on your users to read, you should back that up with some check.

Re: UX clichés

#119

Post by patman »

Theodores wrote: post #100

UX is a by-product of the mess we have made of web development. We made web development so overly complicated that vast teams are needed for the simple task of showing stuff on a page. Part of the holdup has been CSS. To build out a responsive layout used to be phenomenally hard. Tim Berners Lee didn't think layout was needed, originally the web was to just link documents that people would open in other programs, so…

> UX is a by-product of the mess we have made of web development.

UX is about much more than web development. It's about the user's experience of any product or service, including software, vacuum cleaners, attending an event etc.

Re: UX clichés

#120

Post by megaremote »

dylanrw wrote: post #7

““Designers should have a seat at the table” When you are not able to prove your strategic value to the company based on your everyday actions and behaviors, and you have to beg to be invited to important meetings.“ Or it could be that an experienced designer has more to offer than acting as a glorified crayon only putting color where the stakeholders want it.

And developers need to be at the seat of the designing table, or you end up with things that are impossible to do.
Post reply on HN