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

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: UX clichés

#161

Post by posterboy »

Jenz wrote: post #149
posterboy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says folks believed myths to be realistic? We are actually talking about knowledge, not believe. There may have been many people for whom between horses and steam engine powered trains there was no certainty nor prospect for motorization, only wet dreams of flying. Interesting fact nontheless, Pegasus comes to mind.

True. I find it hard to relate to. Do priest believe god is real, (if so: also realistic,) or do they just believe in him?

Priests believe in an interpretation of what they know and they know they believe because they have been indoctrinated to think so. It's very difficult and I don't want to disparage it, not actively right now, but latently--and that's similarly a learned behavior. However, if Goedels symbolic proof of gods existence, which is subject to interpretation of course, holds any water, than there might be an elementary truth, the knowledge that good does exist. Similar to Descartes "I think therefore I am", it might be trivial and discovering it might be part of everyones development. In that sense, priests wouldn't be any different. Ironically, I believe that I know that, the proof at least, subconsciously. I actively believe that. That's not good. lol.

What does that have to do with UX cliches? If you'd ask priests whether god is dead, they'd say, "why, horses are good enough"?!

Re: UX clichés

#162

Post by ktpsns »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #157
TeMPOraL wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify and Google Play Music are a kind of worse version of UI of Foobar2000, with much limited features. There was a huge UX regression coming with the move to the cloud. I'm all for things evolving, but it's better if they don't devolve .

> There was a huge UX regression coming with the move to the cloud. Maybe in terms of the things you can click and knobs you can twiddle, but moving my music into Google Play and off (e.g.) iTunes means that I can very trivially put music on my mobile device (using either that device, or the computer) that is almost instantly accessible offline, and easy to listen to. That twin gain - ease of sync and offline availab…

As somebody paying for Spotify, I agree. As somebody who had a MP3 collection on his disk in the 2000s, I disagree. Without doubt, my wifi connection should make it easy and fast to synchronize music between my laptop and smartphone. Nevertheless, "moving to the cloud" favours a centralized setup. Thankfully we see more decentralization on the horizon.

Re: UX clichés

#163

Post by ktpsns »

whoopdedo wrote: post #105
itronitron wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> “If Henry Ford had asked people what they wanted, they would have told him faster horses” I don't buy that, many people probably would have said that they wanted a horse that doesn't poop

Or eat. Or die of old age. And I was going to say he delivered on that. Except now the horse poops carbon monoxide and eats gasoline instead of oats. But while cars also don't live forever except with great care, they do at least have a longer lifespan than a horse.

> [cars] do at least have a longer lifespan than a horse.

(1.) "The Antique Automobile Club of America defines an antique car as over 25 years of age" [Source: Wikipedia, Oldtimer]

(2.) "The modern domestic horse has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years" [Source: Wikipedia, Horse]

Pretty much any car doesn't reach the age of an oldtimer. It is scrapped long before. We live in a throwaway society which produces tons of waste. Horses are pretty cool.

Re: UX clichés

#164

Post by TeMPOraL »

ktpsns wrote: post #162
pavel_lishin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a huge UX regression coming with the move to the cloud. Maybe in terms of the things you can click and knobs you can twiddle, but moving my music into Google Play and off (e.g.) iTunes means that I can very trivially put music on my mobile device (using either that device, or the computer) that is almost instantly accessible offline, and easy to listen to. That twin gain - ease of sync and offline availab…

As somebody paying for Spotify, I agree. As somebody who had a MP3 collection on his disk in the 2000s, I disagree. Without doubt, my wifi connection should make it easy and fast to synchronize music between my laptop and smartphone. Nevertheless, "moving to the cloud" favours a centralized setup. Thankfully we see more decentralization on the horizon.

With music (and videos, and games) there's also another angle that I believe is in big part responsible for the success of Spotify and similar services: they provide an alternative between the only two options people had before - either spend a lot of money buying music in unwieldy formats, or acquire MP3s from copyright infringers.

Re: UX clichés

#165

Post by flukus »

kurtisc wrote: post #150
graphememes wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been proven to be misunderstood globally. Just the word "menu" is more beneficial.

English isn't understood globally.

Either you'll translate the contents of the menu anyway and take care of this or you won't and having a universal icon to access an English only menu doesn't help.

Re: UX clichés

#166

Post by cuddlecake »

pgwhalen wrote: post #82
cuddlecake wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse in my case, we are using event sourcing, but the client reads the Eventstore streams indirectly. It's terribly uncomfortable being the only one on a team of 7 who thinks this is terrible.

Can you describe what you mean by indirectly?

By indirectly I mean that we have a WebSocket API that does nothing more than expose the primitive streams.

Our frontend client basically reads any stream it needs. And the main problem is, if you have to handle 40+ streams (and that is not even 30% of what's to come), it gets more and more difficult to provide a good user experience.

Thankfully, after much discussion we agreed to do it better... Soon ish.

Re: UX clichés

#167

Post by pavel_lishin »

ktpsns wrote: post #162
pavel_lishin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a huge UX regression coming with the move to the cloud. Maybe in terms of the things you can click and knobs you can twiddle, but moving my music into Google Play and off (e.g.) iTunes means that I can very trivially put music on my mobile device (using either that device, or the computer) that is almost instantly accessible offline, and easy to listen to. That twin gain - ease of sync and offline availab…

As somebody paying for Spotify, I agree. As somebody who had a MP3 collection on his disk in the 2000s, I disagree. Without doubt, my wifi connection should make it easy and fast to synchronize music between my laptop and smartphone. Nevertheless, "moving to the cloud" favours a centralized setup. Thankfully we see more decentralization on the horizon.

I totally agree with you, there should be a self-hosted option. I'd love it if the Google Play API was sufficiently reverse-engineered to just install a modified version of their software to point to my own server.

I've asked for open-source/self-hosted solutions before, and a few people here responded. One of the solutions looks like it promises to do what I want, though I haven't had a solid chance to look at it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19555899

Re: UX clichés

#168

Post by dylanrw »

tyingq wrote: post #10
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.

It's a self effacing article from a UX person intended to be funny.

Yeah, I'll admit I missed that. /facepalm

Re: UX clichés

#169

Post by dylanrw »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
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.

It's satire. But it's also speaking to the idea that designers who make meaningful contributions won't need to ask to be at the table.

Yeah, I'll admit I missed that. /facepalm

Re: UX clichés

#170

Post by dylanrw »

megaremote wrote: post #120
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.

Yes, or hire a good designer who's aware of the medium. Otherwise, you're hiring a stylist/artist.
Post reply on HN