171–180 of 192 posts
Nice post. The one that REALLY annoys me is reminders. If I want to add a reminder, I would assume subconsciously I have to press the add symbol. But that adds a new list. To add a new item you have to tap an empty white box with no visual cue . Brilliant.
This kind of post annoys me. It's driven by the fact that the author has some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability audit, which it is not. > When I tap it, it turns red — but wait — it doesn’t give me the visual feedback. Did I break it? > The alarm is shown as a red filled square, so when I tap it, it should per…
> This kind of post annoys me. It's driven by the fact that the author has some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability audit, which it is not. Wrong on all counts. What the author complaints about are examples of broken standard usability guidelines that all experts agree upon. Like consistency, affordances, the pr…
The lack of affordance in iOS7 is a real usability killer. People argue that the lack of button borders and inconsistency invites exploration. That's the kind of BS argument bad designers make when their designs test poorly. iOS7 is great in many ways, but is harder to use than ever before. Ugg.
The lack of affordance in iOS7 is a real usability killer. Actually, it's a learnability problem: once you learn how to use its features, iOS 7 is a vast improvement over 6.
But that can be said about anything which involves "knowledge in the head" vs "knowledge in the world": Once you learn how to use it, it's superior to simpler systems restricted to only what can be operated by knowledge in the world alone.
And so far everyone has argued that iPhones are "better" by virtue of being "simpler" and "more intuitive" than Android because you don't need to figure out how things works, i.e. it only depends on knowledge in the world.
And now with iOS7 the tune is that you just need "knowledge in the head" and all is good. That's not a very consistent story.
This kind of post annoys me. It's driven by the fact that the author has some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability audit, which it is not. > When I tap it, it turns red — but wait — it doesn’t give me the visual feedback. Did I break it? > The alarm is shown as a red filled square, so when I tap it, it should per…
I wouldn't necessarily elevate an expectation of visual and behaviorial consistency to "theory". I have learned that a chair can hold my body weight. When I rest my body on an object that resembles a chair and that I've never encountered, I expect to be able to rest my body on it. This is the foundation of design, industrial or interactive. We're not debating the outer contours and nuances of this idea. The article p…
Nope. We're both totally unrepresentative, the moment we start analysing.
My complaint is: I don't believe that all the points the author made came from him genuinely finding things confusing and then working out which design inconsistencies caused his confusion. I think his ability to make those judgements are clouded by his endeavouring to analyse and critique a design (as would be mine). That's why we have user testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general point of consistency is valid though. On the add alarm screen, I personally couldn't tell at first how you would add an alarm because the + was small and had no outline -- i.e. inconsistent with buttons elsewhere in the app.
Same here. These thin-lined icons also slow me down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The similar looking button in the Timer screen DID give visual feedback when pressed. In a consistent UI, either this button would do too, or neither would. Visual feedback needs to serve a purpose. This is a stop watch we're talking about - one that shows time in tens of milliseconds, which is less than one frame interval at 60fps. Any animation done would hinder the function of the stop watch and raise ambiguity…
That is a ludicrous argument. An animation does not affect timer functionality unless you are an incompetent coder.
This kind of post annoys me. It's driven by the fact that the author has some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. There's nothing wrong with that. But this post pretends to be like a real usability audit, which it is not. > When I tap it, it turns red — but wait — it doesn’t give me the visual feedback. Did I break it? > The alarm is shown as a red filled square, so when I tap it, it should per…
> It's driven by the fact that the author has some theories about UI design, and wants to share them with us. This was exactly my reaction. The author points out things which are "confusing" within the context of some logical UI design theory. But nothing in the article is practically confusing. From the article: The Plus could mean “Add Something”, but why does it have no outline? And why is it red? Does it perform…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That reminds me of the first time I picked up an iPhone. I opened the Maps app and couldn't for the life of me figure out how to close it. 30-45 seconds of just staring at the thing. Then I saw the home button.
Yes, that happens a lot for new users. Thing is, once you DO know how to do something, it makes complete sense, and is very memorable - you won't forget it. Sometimes the issue isn't so much making the interface usable, but instead teaching the user how to use it and in a way they won't forget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that happens a lot for new users. Thing is, once you DO know how to do something, it makes complete sense, and is very memorable - you won't forget it. Sometimes the issue isn't so much making the interface usable, but instead teaching the user how to use it and in a way they won't forget.
By that logic, vt100 apps used by banks in those green terminals have fabulous UI. Users familiar with the UI are blazing fast on terminal apps. The discoverability is near zero, though.
I was referring to what takes but a second to learn and makes perfect natural sense thereafter (not to be confused with learning painful rote/ugly process). Interface should be obvious in context - but that doesn't mean the user has ever encountered that context before, and initially doesn't understand it enough to know what constitutes "obvious". If you've never encountered gravity before, walking (i.e.: stand, then fall forward, then stop yourself with a foot, repeat) is not something you'd think of doing, but is obvious once you see it done.