141–150 of 217 posts
It would be better if, instead of a useless albeit pretty icon, there was a brief description of what the law is about. Fitts's Law tells me nothing about what it is other than its a UX "law" coined by someone called Fitts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t help that the designers often do not code and model the experiences in animation software. 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…
> It doesn’t help that the designers often do not code and model the experiences in animation software. I don't think even that is a good enough reason. They simply don't approach the problem the way someone using their app would. It's the developers' problem to turn a difficult design into code, but the real problem is that even when that is done perfectly, the UX still sucks. Every time we redesigned a major UX com…
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…
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…
Nice, huge, Fitts' Law-optimized button though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> there has always been good reasons to avoid running code in the browser unless there is a good reason 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;…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the site is almost impossible to use (at least on mobile) > I am entirely unsure what I’m supposed to click on As a tangent, I wonder if we'll be stuck with "click" being a very common word to use to refer to following links when it makes no sense when in the context of a touch screen. English is littered with words like that, so it's possible it's here to stay, but occasionally (rarely, I admit), it jumps out at m…
4 or so years ago, I remember a frustrated Dev printed out signs on our floor at Zynga that was focused on the then early-mobile efforts that said “It’s a tap not a click!”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. You don't get it, you just minimized and dismissed everyone's objections to this site. As a power point presentation, this site is great. As a line item on your resume, sure. As a resource that someone can use and referenc…
Right, and it's clearly not a reference website, considering it's a random selection of a few UX guidelines.