Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

blog.pwego.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#21

Post by JoshTko »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #7
sonofhans wrote: post #5

IMHO they’re taking the wrong lesson from this. Users don’t want complexity and they don’t want to hunt, but they desperately want not to waste time — they want some confidence that the action they’re about to take will further their goals. Showing an unordered list of unfamiliar names doesn’t further anyone’s goals, and it gives no confidence that further action will help, either. Why keep scrolling if all the names…

I was about to make a similar comment. The author even states this at the end "user's prioritize trails close to them, so the best way to show that is with a map". --- The first UX was NOT the most efficient way to show the information but the second one was. Therefore, users do in fact want the most efficient UX. He was just wrong about what that was.

This, calling the first design the most efficient UX shows how little empathy he has for his users. He built a UX for himself and faulted users for being "inefficient"

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#22

Post by cycomanic »

sonofhans wrote: post #5

IMHO they’re taking the wrong lesson from this. Users don’t want complexity and they don’t want to hunt, but they desperately want not to waste time — they want some confidence that the action they’re about to take will further their goals. Showing an unordered list of unfamiliar names doesn’t further anyone’s goals, and it gives no confidence that further action will help, either. Why keep scrolling if all the names…

I agree with what you're saying. Particular when you start using the app for the first time you have no idea what those reports actually mean. I suspect if he had an option for a widget or homescreen at a later point which shows users this list screen (with selectable favorites), it might find very significant use, but it is something the users have customised and now understand the meaning of.

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#24

Post by gwbas1c »

> Now, instead of the info being discoverable instantly, it takes about 30 seconds

No, in the original UI, the information that the users was looking for was not discoverable instantly, and it would have taken much longer than 30 seconds.

I suspect that the author originally wrote a UI that was convenient for them to write, and is going through mental gymnastics to try and justify to themselves why their original UI was better.

> So, despite it taking objectively longer for users to get their answers, they loved it.

Objectively? If a user wants to know what the conditions are at a particular resort, the map-based UI is objectively better. A UI that shows them data that they are not interested in is objectively worse.

I think this article is an example of how, when writing an application, it's easy to throw together a UI that matches our data model. It's much harder to make a UI useful.

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#25

Post by solardev »

The first design did not tell you:

* Where any of these trails are. Are they even in the same area? State? Country? No idea.

* If any of the trails are any good

* Who those people are and why you should care.

* Whether those reports deserve your attention (no difference between "it was nice" and "this is closed due to a landslide yesterday")

Honestly the map UI is pretty terrible too. It still doesn't tell you anything useful about the trails. What does the duration even mean? Is that how far away they are from you? How long it takes to ski them? How long ago the most recent report was? No idea.

It feels like the UX was built by someone who's never tried to actually find a place to go skiing in a new area. I mean, this isn't even a new problem... just copy an existing app:

Trailforks already does it pretty well: https://www.trailforks.com/region/bend/?activitytype=1&z=9.3... (most popular mountain bike routes near a place)

Alltrails too, for hiking: https://www.alltrails.com/ shows you local favorites, super straightforward but tells you all the essentials (these are closeby, they're favorites because they're highly reviewed, here's how long they are, and a pretty picture) or the map view: https://www.alltrails.com/explore?b_tl_lat=44.16336969078622...

Not only were those the wrong lessons to draw from the two UIs, I think the bigger underlying issue is that the designer doesn't know how users actually look for places to go. Even when eventually given that insight, the conclusion shouldn't be "show a map instead of a list" but "I need to better understand what criteria are important for finding a place to go." Hint: It's not the recency of trail reports.

Maybe the trail reports view is just one screen out of many, and if so this would make more sense, but still... just look at how data-rich and useful the trailforks trail report view is: https://www.trailforks.com/region/bend/reports/ You can instantly pick a trail, or an area, or an activity/difficulty/whatever and see whether it's OK to go there. Much more useful than combing through a bunch of individual reports from anonymous internet people on a timeline. It's the aggregate data that's helpful.

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#26

Post by finfinfin »

sonofhans wrote: post #5

IMHO they’re taking the wrong lesson from this. Users don’t want complexity and they don’t want to hunt, but they desperately want not to waste time — they want some confidence that the action they’re about to take will further their goals. Showing an unordered list of unfamiliar names doesn’t further anyone’s goals, and it gives no confidence that further action will help, either. Why keep scrolling if all the names…

Not to justify author's UX choices, but he does mention that the feed shows reports from the trails the user follows. It's not a list of random trail reports, there is some logic behind it.

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#28

Post by beachy »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #23

What if you had sorted the first version by distance from location?

That would only be relevant if you were already in the vicinty.

I would guess that many/most users would check things out first from home, maybe hundreds of miles away. They might use the results to decide which field to go to.

Re: Sometimes users prefer the less straightforward UX

#29

Post by LudwigNagasena »

finfinfin wrote: post #26
sonofhans wrote: post #5

IMHO they’re taking the wrong lesson from this. Users don’t want complexity and they don’t want to hunt, but they desperately want not to waste time — they want some confidence that the action they’re about to take will further their goals. Showing an unordered list of unfamiliar names doesn’t further anyone’s goals, and it gives no confidence that further action will help, either. Why keep scrolling if all the names…

Not to justify author's UX choices, but he does mention that the feed shows reports from the trails the user follows. It's not a list of random trail reports, there is some logic behind it.

That means zero discoverability.
Post reply on HN