111–120 of 401 posts
For anyone as confused as I was, this article is not about toasted bread [1], but about a type of UI widget [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(food) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toast_(computing)
"We do have to consider the undo-functionality and that the toast feedback can be useful when using keyboard shortcuts." There's nothing more infuriating than going to click undo and the toast disappears.
I don't think designers should put anything interactive in an arbitrarily timed interface aside from "Dismiss". A toast is the best when it's displaying what is currently going on, not as a pop up dialog box.
The best design for Undo I think is to make it a dedicated button, like the one in the text editors. When user clicked "Archive", a Toast pop up and displays message "Archiving N entries, please wait" and then change it to "N entries archived. You can press Control+C or click [Undo Icon] to undo if that was a mistake" then the Undo button lights up.
Also, IMO the message format "Archiving N entries, please wait" should be a standard, it tells the user in a clear way 1) what the software is doing, and 2) what should I the user do. On the other hand, the message "Conversation archived" don't really provide the same value, since user already saw it happened.
For anyone as confused as I was, this article is not about toasted bread [1], but about a type of UI widget [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_(food) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toast_(computing)
Where does the name toast come from anyway?
For context, I'm coming from the world of native apps. Toasts overall, especially with the 'undo' action, have been a very useful contribution by Google to UX. Compared to iOS's "show a blocking popup in the middle of the screen", they were so much nicer. Like I said, the "undo" for cases like the archive example are the whole point! Instead of asking "are you sure?" for everything, you just delay the action and offer an undo. Default to the user being sure they wanted to perform that action and dont gatekeep their flow. Dont overuse it, but dont blame its bad uses on the toast itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does the name toast come from anyway?
Toast "pops up" from the toaster when it's done.
I'm not convinced. Most of the argument seems to be that redundant UX is bad UX: > But by archiving the email, the email disappears from the list, which already implies the action was successful. > In this example, the button already includes a confirmation so the toast is entirely unnecessary. I vehemently disagree with the idea that just because you're already communicating something one way it's bad UX to include…
The unfortunate thing is they aren’t communicating the same thing. Taking the YouTube example, the checkboxes are 100% optimistic while the toast notification indicates that the request to the backend that was fired off asynchronously was successful. With the archive message example, it is the same thing. The message is removed from the list optimistically and the toast message is representing that the message was ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does the name toast come from anyway?
Toast "pops up" from the toaster when it's done.
Update: On consideration, I think my disconnect was because the plural of the notification method is "toasts", but the plural of the recooked bread slices is "toast". The plural of benedictions given prior to a drink is "toasts". So I mentally connected up with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unfortunate thing is they aren’t communicating the same thing. Taking the YouTube example, the checkboxes are 100% optimistic while the toast notification indicates that the request to the backend that was fired off asynchronously was successful. With the archive message example, it is the same thing. The message is removed from the list optimistically and the toast message is representing that the message was ac…
Fair enough, but when they are not communicating the same thing, there are no grounds for objecting to them on the basis of redundancy. The problem with notification only of failure is that one is left uncertain about success, though I would agree that striking a balance between distraction and uncertainty is difficult.