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

Toasts are bad UX

maxschmitt.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 401 posts

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#381

Post by digging »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #355
lolinder wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a toast just the tail of a message log that's visible for a few seconds after a new message is added? I don't always want the entire log to be occupying space on my screen, but I do want to see when new items get added.

The problem is that everyone implements toasts, and no one implements the message log, even though it's the latter that's more important to have.

Exactly - a toast is, at best, a nice add-on to a message log. Although I maintain a well implemented message log already serves every single purpose toasts do, better.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#382

Post by autoexec »

sebstefan wrote: post #338
csomar wrote: post #329

> The "Undo" button in the toast is unnecessary because the user can just click the checkbox again I’ll start by saying that I particularly appreciate this feature. There are countless times where I archived an email, only for the toast to tell me that I clicked the report spam button. I’d have been completely unaware otherwise. The other issue underlying toasts that the OP is missing: Web operations are async. There…

OP completely missed the point of toasts. Some user actions can be 1) done accidentally 2) don't lend themselves to confirmation boxes because they are often also done repeatedly So if you accidentally press something and suddenly the email is gone from your inbox, you want a toast with an undo button. Or if you're just idling and you suddenly see a toast because you were leaning on a button, you'll be glad it's ther…

> So if you accidentally press something and suddenly the email is gone from your inbox, you want a toast with an undo button.

Why? If an email suddenly vanishes and you don't want that you don't need a popup to tell you what happened, you can just Ctrl-Z and the email comes back

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#383

Post by davidsgk »

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #310
cellularmitosis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would much rather only get the toast if there is a failure to commit the change ... And being far on the screen from where I’m taking an action makes them even more of a distraction. But wouldn't this situation be even worse with a failure-only toast? A request timeout could happen 30 seconds after the fact. You're likely in a very different UI state at that point, and unless the error message is very specific, y…

I think it would be nice if the toast popped up and hid in a tray and you could expand it and see a toast history with timestamps.

I agree. If it's available, I always appreciate a toast + notification tray combo where you get non-blocking feedback on successes but you can also keep track of any past messages.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#385

Post by [deleted] »

catapart wrote: post #366
Spivak wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic case of "My own opinions didn't require evidence but to convince me otherwise requires research."

lol My case is a reference to a real-life, literal sitaution that I was involved with. The "opinions" expressed as why I would or would not do certain things had PLENTY of A/B testing and research done on them. Not only internally, within my company, but externally out on the open internet. Nothing I said conflicts with extremely common understandings of these UX patterns. And, far more importantly, our internal test…

[deleted]

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#386

Post by roninorder »

catapart wrote: post #366
Spivak wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic case of "My own opinions didn't require evidence but to convince me otherwise requires research."

lol My case is a reference to a real-life, literal sitaution that I was involved with. The "opinions" expressed as why I would or would not do certain things had PLENTY of A/B testing and research done on them. Not only internally, within my company, but externally out on the open internet. Nothing I said conflicts with extremely common understandings of these UX patterns. And, far more importantly, our internal test…

So... still an opinion? You forgot to include the results of your extensive A/B testing and links to research on the subject.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#387

Post by sedatk »

cubefox wrote: post #328
sedatk wrote: post #321

> When the loading indicator disappears, it implies the action has completed No. The author assumes that it implies that. For the user though, it can imply many things: - Something loading in the area next to the text, indicating something's coming up to that region soon, and when it disappears, it might be interpreted as a loading error. - UI is doing something, so not responsive anymore. - UI is doing something, an…

I like animating the checkbox most, but showing a loading symbol next to it is clearly also much better than the current behavior. In the YouTube example, I don't think the last two options you mentioned would work very well.

> is clearly also much better

I disagree. For a software developer, yes, because we understand a cut corner when we see one. But a user doesn't think like a software developer.

> I don't think the last two options you mentioned would work very well.

You're probably right about that. But I also think, loading icon wouldn't work better either. The messaging is vague in the first place.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#388

Post by jacknews »

jacknews wrote: post #47

Sorry I have no idea what he's even talking about after the first couple of paragraphs and screenshots, so while I'm very interested in good UX, I'm left thinking this author is not an expert practitioner.

And it's partly because the screen clips don't play in firefox - it seems you have to scroll past them, then back up, then click, or something.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#389

Post by dredmorbius »

dang wrote: post #376
clarkdale wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think it's fair that you (a moderator) should be allowed to pin comments to the top. There may be dozens of helpful links sharing or clarifying context in the discussion. The community can use the upvote feature to sort comments. Exceptions might be made in cases of misinformation or abuse.

Don't be sorry - that's a great point! I guess for me the "pin the comment" thing is a workaround for a limitation in the software that we haven't had a chance to fix it—that is, there should be a way in the standard HN UI to associate multiple links with a story (including the archive links that many users post into the threads). Whatever mechanism we build for that, it will certainly be community-driven in the sens…

One of my personal conventions on stories with many duplicate submissions is to try to list those sources within the first / main discussion.

Recent example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41248551>

(I haven't hit on a standard notation for this though I've noted "other submissions" in some cases.)

Karma, schwarama.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#390

Post by catapart »

roninorder wrote: post #386
catapart wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol My case is a reference to a real-life, literal sitaution that I was involved with. The "opinions" expressed as why I would or would not do certain things had PLENTY of A/B testing and research done on them. Not only internally, within my company, but externally out on the open internet. Nothing I said conflicts with extremely common understandings of these UX patterns. And, far more importantly, our internal test…

So... still an opinion? You forgot to include the results of your extensive A/B testing and links to research on the subject.

Yes, a well tested and well researched opinion. Just like I'm sure your opinion was.

The difference is, I didn't say "Here's a better UX". I said "This is an appropriate use for the UX". I didn't back it up with testing because I wasn't saying anything that needed backing up. I wasn't making a value statement, or insisting on a quality of the UX; I just said that toasts were appropriate for certain functions - not that there was no better way to handle the UX.

You, on the other hand, absolutely did make a value judgement. You said "better". And okay! I'm fine with you having a better UX! I'd love to know more! Please, provide any information you have on why yours is better!

If you need more help deciphering the difference: I was arguing against the blog author's EXCLUSIVE argument ("actually, this is appropriate, so it's not that toasts are NEVER good UX"). You are arguing for your own EXCLUSIVE argument ("the good things about this way aren't available with your way"). If you don't understand why exclusive arguments merit more evidence than arguments for maintaining inclusion (as opposed to changing to be more inclusive), I'd recommend boning up on formal logic.

Post reply on HN