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

Laws of UX

lawsofux.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: Laws of UX

#31

Post by lexicality »

carlosjobim wrote: post #14
lexicality wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one is actually genuinely true and why so many price comparison and search websites artificially load slowly with fancy loading screens.

I think that's more of pseudo-science. I've never heard anybody express any distrust for a service just because it's fast. Let's say you go to a store and ask if they have a certain product. The clerk says "Sure, here it is". Is that worse than saying "Hmmm, I have to check in the warehouse first"?

Wrong analogy, imagine you ask where the butter is and they answer "aisle 14" and turn away before you even finish speaking. The butter might be there, but it will feel at least a little like they were saying anything to get rid of you.

Humans want things to operate at human speeds and computers are way faster than that.

Re: Laws of UX

#32

Post by JohnFen »

pickingdinner wrote: post #23
JohnFen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this can be scientifically measured by mouse distance and clicks. [...] > And this can be scientifically assessed by taking all use cases and refactoring over them. And I can't count the number of times I've seen applications do this, resulting in a terrible UI that is hard (and therefore slow) to use.

This contradicts the premise. > hard (and therefore slow) to use. You assess the use case, as in each case the user goes from want to finish. If it's slow and hard, you fix that. 1 click is the fastest. An obvious button that does exactly what you want is the easiest. There is nothing slow or hard about an interface optimized based on a complete understanding of what the user wants to the point that they can distill…

I was taking issue with optimizing things based on the metrics that I quoted. Just because a thing can be done in fewer clicks, or with a smaller movement of the mouse, doesn't mean that's the way that a person most effectively works.

What the user wants is important. Understanding how the user works in order to get there is also important. The most efficient path for a person is not necessarily the one with the fewest clicks/shortest mouse travel.

Re: Laws of UX

#33

Post by JohnFen »

lexicality wrote: post #31
carlosjobim wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's more of pseudo-science. I've never heard anybody express any distrust for a service just because it's fast. Let's say you go to a store and ask if they have a certain product. The clerk says "Sure, here it is". Is that worse than saying "Hmmm, I have to check in the warehouse first"?

Wrong analogy, imagine you ask where the butter is and they answer "aisle 14" and turn away before you even finish speaking. The butter might be there, but it will feel at least a little like they were saying anything to get rid of you. Humans want things to operate at human speeds and computers are way faster than that.

> The butter might be there, but it will feel at least a little like they were saying anything to get rid of you.

But that's because you're interacting with a human and that sort of behavior from another human typically indicates a kind of hostility.

Interacting with software is nothing like interacting with a human, and doesn't trigger those human social cues.

Re: Laws of UX

#34

Post by JohnMakin »

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build for the common denominator, these people get left out.

Re: Laws of UX

#35

Post by JohnFen »

JohnMakin wrote: post #34

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build for the common denominator, these people get left out.

When you build for the common denominator, a huge number of people are left out, including those with disabilities.

> customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities.

Customizable interfaces are the only real solution -- not just for people with disabilities, but for everybody.

There are a number of websites and applications that I stopped using because of UX choices I am allergic to. If they were configurable, it might have been possible for me to mitigate the worst parts.

Further, UX/UI decisions have been getting worse over time, making configurability even more important as time goes on.

Re: Laws of UX

#36

Post by pickingdinner »

JohnFen wrote: post #32
pickingdinner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This contradicts the premise. > hard (and therefore slow) to use. You assess the use case, as in each case the user goes from want to finish. If it's slow and hard, you fix that. 1 click is the fastest. An obvious button that does exactly what you want is the easiest. There is nothing slow or hard about an interface optimized based on a complete understanding of what the user wants to the point that they can distill…

I was taking issue with optimizing things based on the metrics that I quoted. Just because a thing can be done in fewer clicks, or with a smaller movement of the mouse, doesn't mean that's the way that a person most effectively works. What the user wants is important. Understanding how the user works in order to get there is also important. The most efficient path for a person is not necessarily the one with the fewe…

This is just math, so I will continue to elaborate.

Mouse clicks and distance are two of the most basic metrics. And straight forward. So why wouldn't you optimize there?

But what you're referring to is that which can offset and add to those metrics. "Mouse click" in and of itself means nothing in the context of the program. So it's the "other stuff" that pushes against the goal being accomplished in 1 click.

So the answer is, considering that "other stuff", what is the most efficient, as in, fewest clicks and shortest distance possible?

The gripe that should be had is not even optimizing on this level, and even worse, prioritizing "fancy" animations as if that's a good thing and as if that's your main job.

> The most efficient path for a person is not necessarily the one with the fewest clicks/shortest mouse travel.

The most efficient path for that person is necessarily the one with the fewest clicks/shortest mouse travel (for that person).

And that is the optimization process of 1 use case (user usage case path).

The goal of UI is to optimize efficiency across most use cases (and hence users) as measurably possible.

(all the fancy animations can be added after that, so you can bill for those hours, and add an obvious "animations off" button, and you'll literally make everyone happy).

Re: Laws of UX

#37

Post by graypegg »

Under Aesthetic-Usability Effect

> 2: People are more tolerant of minor usability issues when the design of a product or service is aesthetically pleasing.

I think this is true for someone’s first interaction with a thing. But if you rely on something, minor usability issues skyrocket in importance, and aesthetic importance drops really fast.

Re: Laws of UX

#38

Post by uxcolumbo »

JohnFen wrote: post #35
JohnMakin wrote: post #34

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build for the common denominator, these people get left out.

When you build for the common denominator, a huge number of people are left out, including those with disabilities. > customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. Customizable interfaces are the only real solution -- not just for people with disabilities, but for everybody. There are a number of websites and applications that I stopped using because of UX choices I am allergic to. If they were configu…

Exactly.

It's unfortunate that accessibility is usually treated as an add-on in a lot of 'UX' project. Focus is heavily on visual design.

Accessibility needs to be considered from the start when designing new apps.

Making things accessible means making it easier for all users.

Which apps / sites have you stopped using because of poor UX choices.

And what are those things that made you stop using those sites?

Re: Laws of UX

#39

Post by mattkevan »

nelsonenzo wrote: post #2

These seem like theories, not laws. And imho, some of it is very wrong, such as: > Purposefully adding a delay to a process can actually increase its perceived value and instill a sense of trust, even when the process itself actually takes much less time.

We found adding a slight delay in between the user clicking the payment button and showing the success message in the checkout improved trust. It felt like the system was doing something important, whereas if happened instantly people worried that something had gone wrong because it was ‘too quick’.

The user is part of the system too, and sometimes giving them a bit of time to process what’s happening can be beneficial.

Re: Laws of UX

#40

Post by BiteCode_dev »

pickingdinner wrote: post #16
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perfect UI doesn't have a button, it does what's expected without the user asking for it.

I disagree. That isn't even an interface. And this is the source of so much trouble. The "developer knows best" mindset. The developer will never know exactly when I want coffee, yet so many programs assume my coffee needs are just an algorithm that I secretly obey and just don't know it yet. The best interface does nothing. It's idle and listens. Everything automatic must be fully transparent and be opt-in. Fully ex…

What you describe just means our tech is not ready yet.

Not that it's not the best UI.

Nobody miss having to manually change their clock for DST or after a plane trip.

One day, the machine will read your mind, know you need some info, and download it into your brain. You will just know what you need to know without asking, as if it were obvious.

That's the best UI.

It's also the UI that will be the most abused with the most terrible consequences.

Dark patterns on neuralink are going to get, well, dark.

Post reply on HN