121–130 of 217 posts
Miller's Law - The average person can only keep 7 (plus or minus 2) items in their working memory.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus...
Unfortunately, the way something looks is but a tiny, tiny factor in the scope of the overall UX. This totally falls apart as a reference piece that I can bookmark and go back to from time to time. I think this is also compounded by the fact that the content of the site is centered around preaching good UX - but doesn't adhere to it's own advice. I can forgive lapses in UX thinking on software engineering blogs or the latest and greatest crypto forum...but if your site about UX has bad UX, you're in for a bad time - especially on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a broad law considering * Expectation is subjective and this forum are the minority * History-jacking done badly is not a reason to throw out a technology Random JavaScript hate is so last year
> Random JavaScript hate is so last year It isn't random. Firstly I think it is mostly directed at the abuse of JS that we see. Secondly while there has always been good reasons to avoid running code in the browser unless there is a good reason. This year added one more with the CPU level bugs that could be exploited through client side JS.
From what I hear from the junior devs, what they're teaching in school these days is that as much of the site as possible should be offloaded to the client device in order to free up server resources.
The mindset is that everyone in the world has unlimited massive bandwidth at all times, along with the latest gear; and if you don't, you're an "edge case" and should be ridiculed.
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
The reaction on Hacker News compared to the reaction on Designer News is great. 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.
[0] https://www.designernews.co/stories/90954-laws-of-ux Super positive. We love it. Blows my mind. But that's the point - it's really like two very, very different ways of thinking about, approaching/creating and evaluating projects (in this case, a web site.) On one side, they have "an eye for design" that really appreciates this novel UI design, but on this other side, we have that eye for efficiency and... ahem..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'm confident that web design is the way it is mostly as a means to keep the people that work with it employed. 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…
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…
The site works fine without JavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'm confident that web design is the way it is mostly as a means to keep the people that work with it employed. 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…
I am currently working on a redesign and just saw the agency’s suggestions for animation. Seem to be highly influenced by iOS apps’ transitions and motion. But this is a website, for browsers, to be displayed on a variety of screen sizes, on a variety of browser versions.
And the users of my website use mostly other websites so if I create something that behaves very differently, the training they have will be wasted and the experience — unintuitive.
So the agency will present this to high management, in an ideal layout, designed in animation software, moving perfectly smoothly and solving for only one case without a clue on how to approach corner cases. If management finds it sexy, we’ll be stuck with development and maintenance of ultra complicated code. And the pleasure of discovering and resolving all corner cases ourselves, on a deadline, with limited budget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My vote for law 11 is “don’t use JavaScript unless it’s absolutely necessary”. That way the browser actually behaves the way you expect.
Maybe more like “use JavaScript to enhance the experience, not define it”. At least unless you're prepared to actually get it right, which still in 2018, seems to be tricky given the amount of weird sites like this. This site breaks so many conventions of the web and normal navigation I don't even want to start listing them. Bad SPA sites are the full page Flash sites of today.
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…
I think a lot of the hate comes from people seeing that it's about UX and want to immediately tear it down for not being how they personally prefer information (apparently, if it's not the most information dense way possible, they don't like it).
I actually think having a distinct picture and making you scroll a bit helped me. The distinct picture is a good mnemonic and makes each law stand out from the others (especially by using different colors). If you had them all squished together with no scrolling necessary and no colors, it would be hard to distinguish between them. Sure, it might be more efficient to scroll through, but that in itself might be the point: reading through something and actually grokking it does not happen by scrolling through it as fast as possible, so why optimize for that?
It looks fine on mobile to me. The only real complaint I had was losing my position on hitting back, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they consciously made it do that. Probably just a bug/oversight.