31–40 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I guess the author try to blame a low value app's lack of user engagement onto the UI design. Then the excuse to apply dark pattern of UI design would be to increase user engagement. Sounds about right? No?
They already described their app's use-case perfectly: it's "weather" for ski conditions.
So what does the Weather app's UX look like?
On first launch, it lets you add locations you care about by searching for them (maybe a map is involved temporarily.)
And from then on, whenever you open the app, you get a dashboard of weather conditions in those places you care about.
Sounds like exactly what they should be doing!
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.
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.
The author missed the point: it is a less straightforward UX if it doesn't meet the user's needs. When I choose a trail while riding, the first thing I look at is a map. It answers a tonne of questions, ranging from how am I going to get there. to how much time am I going to enjoy on the trails, to what I can expect to see on the trails. Lists mean that I am wading through walls of text to find the same information,…
That was the entirety of the author’s point. That was what the whole article was about. That’s why they wrote it, so that you the reader would understand the very concept you believe they missed.