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
I agree with all your interpretations except for #4, I think it's the opposite, if something is ambiguous then you need to add detail to clarify it, and you can present a lot of information at once as long as the representation is consistent. Having lots of detail is not equivalent to being complex.
I would agree. I think the real rule #4 is "Take greater care when presenting detailed or complex information. The presentation will often speak louder than the information."
9. Removing features from your product may result in users not being able to achieve some goals Ie removing the leading zero breaks some sorting (Eg .mp3 files on an album where you know the number of tracks and hence how many leading 0s you need)
This is a problem of the sorting algorithm
Far too many sorting algorithms would have 10 come after 1 but before 2. Those programmers need to be flogged until they see the error of their way.
Complaints about the web site itself aside, I'd like to encourage designers to exercise more restraint when applying some of these laws. Most poignant for me is the misapplication and zealous over-application of Hick's Law. If you review the detailed link provided by the site [1] you will see some commentary about when not to use Hick's law. Personally, I would significantly expand where Hick's law should not be appl…
>doesn't have anything like about:config
I use about:config frequently on my phone - is a pain to use on a phone however. Here's an idea. Use software on the phone but allows users (who wish to) to do deep configuration of phone software on their desktop computer.
I have the opposite complaint about most phone apps - they expose complexity on screens where it's not appropriate. Good software on any platform should "make common things easy and hard things possible".
I call bullshit on all of these, with the possible exception of Fitt's Law and Tesler's Law.
It seems that a lot of things these days are being extremely simplified beyond their point of usefulness and that things are always too small and too cumbersome to click, and require extra clicks because "wow such empty-ness and whitespace-ness".
> Random JavaScript hate is so last year It may well be, and with good reason. However, I still encounter people who think that JavaScript is only used for things like onMouseOver and find it difficult to accept that actually, their favourite app or site is entirely powered by JavaScript.
That sounds like the vast majority of users expect more functionality from browsers than can be achieved without javascript. Do you think they would be willing to part with that functionality to achieve engineering perfection?
> Do you think they would be willing to part with that functionality to achieve engineering perfection?
I think that the question would be entirely lost on most users. Perhaps there needs to be a push to educate on the benefits.
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
I agree with all your interpretations except for #4, I think it's the opposite, if something is ambiguous then you need to add detail to clarify it, and you can present a lot of information at once as long as the representation is consistent. Having lots of detail is not equivalent to being complex.
For this one I dig into the linked articles because I think that the “law” itself is not exactly actionable. As a matter of fact it actually concentrated on logo design. The way I interpreted it for interface design is that if you need to present a lot of detail, you need to give it appropriate space. For example if you have a graph with many curves on it, people will be able to see the general trend but they will not be able to make out individual differences.
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…
This is just giving UX a bad name. 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. Peo…
"UX" already has a bad name, and it's entirely justified. When several decades of solid usability research are thrown away largely due to aesthetics over functionality, resulting in poorly usable, inefficient and confusing interfaces, it's a net loss. Oh, but the experience is better! No, it really isn't. This lawsofux website is IMO an ironic parody of just how out of touch these "UX experts" are, though no doubt they find it wonderful, and it keeps them all in cushy jobs, which is no doubt the main reason for it even being "a thing".