171–180 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Hick's law, if there are many options and your user knows what they are looking for by name, sort!
> your user knows what they are looking for by name There's also CTRL+F in the browser. For the love of all that is holy, don't break it .
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 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…
Reminds me a lot of Kolmogorov complexity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The desktop apps of the 90s was the heyday of UX for power users . Regular users didn't set up their own hotkeys or their toolbars. And they definitely didn't read the help or tool tips. The best UX for regular users, not interested in computers, is somewhere between websites and mobile apps.
Regular users are not interested in computers. They're interested in getting shit done, and getting on with their lives. Which is precisely what modern UX makes harder . You see, regular users aren't "neanderthal users". They have a brain and some amount of focus, and if they have to use an application/website more than few times, they'll figure out and appreciate any feature that lets them do their work more efficie…
There cannot exist the best UX for regular users. There are things that are used once or very rarely and have to be designed to rely on people's prior experience with other things, like most websites. And there are other things that are used often and have to be designed to be learned. Every case is different and not simple.
As for trends, maybe you are thinking about UI trends. People do like to follow those and confuse UIs with UX and make things harder for everyone. But you can't really say there are UX trends.
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.
If it was created as a portfolio piece, I'd say it's successful. If it was created as useful and repeatable reference for the digital product/service/whatever industry, it falls short.
Everyone is taking this fairly seriously. I doubt HN is the target demographic for this sort of thing though.
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…
Breaking the back button is not a minor annoyance, it's a major design error. Site size is irrelevant. Arguably, the rest of the site is also a major design error. Its style over substance approach doesn't look or work like most web sites. In fact it looks like an excuse to design a set of virtual retro book covers that reference the stylings of the late 1960s and early 1970s. I have nothing against vintage book cove…
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;…
Network is much slower than CPU. It's ironic you deride the assumption that everyone has unlimited bandwidth and then suggest that the solution is to send every user interaction through the network.
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
Honestly, just make it into a bullet point list: your reformulation of the ideas is WAY clearer and requires no additional explanations. Maybe add graphical examples if you must, but referring back to the text of the original site actually makes yours worse.