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

41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

uxtigers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#31

Post by tbitrust »

zer00eyz wrote: post #29
tbitrust wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a panel of users with sub-90 IQ who were in a stressful environment and trying to complete other tasks at the same time, blind users, deaf users, et c. For me, the first task would be to make absolutely sure that I block any apps designed by you. Such lack of empathy in your wording proves that you cannot possibly be a decent, half-decent, or even mediocre UI designer.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” — George Carlin You get that when I was on the other side of that 2 way mirror one of the qualifications to be a user was "can you use a mouse". As late as 2005 people being able to navigate a basic web form was quite the challenge. Find someone far removed from tech and ask them if they have used ChatGPT. That IQ 90 user st…

I don't think that people "far removed from tech" are "sub-90 IQ" (a "delicate" euphemism for "stupid").

And I don't think that people on facebook, youtube or tick tock are "sub-90 IQ".

Thanks for making clear that it's what was implied by the original commenter.

That's lack of empathy coupled with sheer, crass ignorance.

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#33

Post by zer00eyz »

tbitrust wrote: post #31
zer00eyz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” — George Carlin You get that when I was on the other side of that 2 way mirror one of the qualifications to be a user was "can you use a mouse". As late as 2005 people being able to navigate a basic web form was quite the challenge. Find someone far removed from tech and ask them if they have used ChatGPT. That IQ 90 user st…

I don't think that people "far removed from tech" are "sub-90 IQ" (a "delicate" euphemism for "stupid"). And I don't think that people on facebook, youtube or tick tock are "sub-90 IQ". Thanks for making clear that it's what was implied by the original commenter. That's lack of empathy coupled with sheer, crass ignorance.

I know people with PHD's who can run rings around you on "their topic" and can't cross the street without support.

I know teachers who are smart, and phenomenal at their job who I had to arm twist to go play with chat GPT cause it's not in their wheelhouse/on their radar.

The not so bright person, who is stressed out is likely a user of your app. The same as the absent minded PHD or the teacher who is too over worked to care about your new tech widget.

These are real people. And there are a LOT OF THEM (for there to be an average 100 intelligence there are a fair number of people UNDER IT). You can go look on FB/YouTube/Ticktok and find them. "Stupid" people exist, there are a lot of them. Making sure your app works for them is good for them, for your company, for your customer support costs... The whole point of usability is to get average, less technical people in and get them testing your app.

To put a fine and final point on it, after 90 IQ, the author went on to talk about blind people. Candidly your app working for everyone with a disadvantage is just good business and shows a LOT Of empathy. A point you seem to have missed in your indignation.

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#34

Post by esafak »

wharvle wrote: post #26
karaterobot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't making a consumer product for nursing home patients with sub-90 IQs, then you'd be wasting your time, and the feedback you got from the exercise wouldn't be useful. In fact, any decisions you made based on it could be wrong. The point isn't to design for the lowest common denominator, but for the users you will actually have, and usability test participants should be recruited with that in mind. There i…

A whole lot of us will be mentally impaired sooner or later. Our experience with software when that happens is sad for everyone but bad UI designers. For them, it’s justice.

So what if we will? That does not mean we will be users of the products we are designing the UI for at that point. Design for actual disabilities that you can reasonably expect your users to have, such as color blindness, not the full spectrum of the human condition.

That said, I do think products should be as simple and clear as possible for a given level of essential complexity.

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#35

Post by aorloff »

zer00eyz wrote: post #9

20 ish years ago I ended up with a UX gig. Best experience of my work history. Detouring into site structure, information design, and doing actual USABILITY (behind a 2 way mirror watching real people use your app) was amazing. Jacob Nielson was blowhard even then. His "all links must be blue and underlined" mantra was tired even then. It takes a lot for me to say this, but his pedantry at the time puts peak Richard…

So many critical websites are horribly broken, especially if you have an older computer

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#37

Post by [deleted] »

karaterobot wrote: post #22
wharvle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now older and wiser, candidly a lot of folks would be well served by default blue links, og html submit buttons and tables for layouts. A fair bit of modern UI is complete trash: it's the product of a designer and a product person putting the next bullet point on their resume. If I were emperor of the world I’d make every consumer program pass a battery of tests that included demonstrating sufficient usability for…

If you aren't making a consumer product for nursing home patients with sub-90 IQs, then you'd be wasting your time, and the feedback you got from the exercise wouldn't be useful. In fact, any decisions you made based on it could be wrong. The point isn't to design for the lowest common denominator, but for the users you will actually have, and usability test participants should be recruited with that in mind. There i…

[deleted]

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#38

Post by amatecha »

lakpan wrote: post #4

Nitpick: interesting how a UX website doesn’t let me resize it since the font is likely set via viewport units.

Huh, which browser? Scales flawlessly for me in Firefox. Actually one of the smoothest-scaling websites I've encountered in ages, wow. Nice!

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#39

Post by [deleted] »

wharvle wrote: post #25
tbitrust wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a panel of users with sub-90 IQ who were in a stressful environment and trying to complete other tasks at the same time, blind users, deaf users, et c. For me, the first task would be to make absolutely sure that I block any apps designed by you. Such lack of empathy in your wording proves that you cannot possibly be a decent, half-decent, or even mediocre UI designer.

… lack of empathy? Where?

[deleted]

Re: 41 Years in UX: A Career Retrospective

#40

Post by ivan_gammel »

karaterobot wrote: post #22
wharvle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now older and wiser, candidly a lot of folks would be well served by default blue links, og html submit buttons and tables for layouts. A fair bit of modern UI is complete trash: it's the product of a designer and a product person putting the next bullet point on their resume. If I were emperor of the world I’d make every consumer program pass a battery of tests that included demonstrating sufficient usability for…

If you aren't making a consumer product for nursing home patients with sub-90 IQs, then you'd be wasting your time, and the feedback you got from the exercise wouldn't be useful. In fact, any decisions you made based on it could be wrong. The point isn't to design for the lowest common denominator, but for the users you will actually have, and usability test participants should be recruited with that in mind. There i…

>The point isn't to design for the lowest common denominator, but for the users you will actually have

Keyword: situational disability

Even a perfectly fit and educated target audience sometimes suffers from certain conditions or in an environment that significantly reduces their mental or physical capacity. Stress, injury, pregnancy, too many beers, very long nails, terrible weather, a toddler trying to grab your phone, non-native speaker etc etc. You may know the user even personally, but you never know what’s going on in their lives when they use your app. So general advice: ALWAYS follow accessibility guidelines. Even bad copy may drop your usage by a significant percentage, because there are plenty of people with dyslexia.

Post reply on HN