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

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Laws of UX

#51

Post by graypegg »

user3939382 wrote: post #45
graypegg wrote: post #37

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.

> if you rely on something ... aesthetic importance drops really fast IMHO it bothers me more because I'm forced to experience it more. It's like the annoyance accumulates. I may care more about UI than the average user though, or maybe I'm just more able to articulate my thoughts about it because of my profession? Not sure.

Humans are pattern-matching machines though. I think anyone, UX-designer or not, can notice annoyances that are clearly just not following the obvious pattern.

I know people that have quit jobs, because they were forced to use software that “I could never learn”. (Salesforce) It got in the way of them doing their job.

However, I’ve seen way more people tolerate an outdated or badly styled UI because “it just works for me, ok?”. No one is quitting a job because their CRM is aesthetically unpleasing.

Re: Laws of UX

#52

Post by pazimzadeh »

I don't really get the point of Tesler’s Law: "any system there is a certain amount of complexity which cannot be reduced"

Is it basically saying don't try to hide a bunch of options behind a hamburger menu?

Re: Laws of UX

#53

Post by carlosjobim »

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.

If the software is fast, you ask for the butter and he puts it right in front of you. I say fast interactions and response is always better than slowness or fake loading screens.

Re: Laws of UX

#54

Post by JohnFen »

pickingdinner wrote: post #36
JohnFen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

You might, but to do so based solely on those metrics is a mistake. That's because those metrics don't fully capture what makes a UI efficient for human use. Other things, like cognitive load, are more important.

Does it matter if it only takes two clicks to do a thing if that usage path isn't one that meshes with the way I think? I think not, because it means that I'll spend additional time thinking about how to accomplish the task rather than just accomplishing it.

> and even worse, prioritizing "fancy" animations as if that's a good thing and as if that's your main job.

I 100% agree with you there! Animations are commonly misused and dramatically overused, and I think that more UIs would be improved by omitting them.

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

If we're talking about "efficiency" in terms of "minimizing the use of the mouse", then I disagree. If we're talking about "efficiency" in terms of what helps a person to accomplish a task in the best way possible, then I agree -- but focusing mostly on those metrics excludes so much other important stuff as to give a distorted picture of the situation.

Re: Laws of UX

#55

Post by JohnFen »

user3939382 wrote: post #47

My ideal for UX or UI is that a new user, understanding the domain and what the application is supposed to do at the most abstract level, should be able to immediately use it without any training or explanation.

I agree, but the problem is that the UI that is great for new users tends to be horrible for experienced users.

Re: Laws of UX

#56

Post by skipnup »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #52

I don't really get the point of Tesler’s Law: "any system there is a certain amount of complexity which cannot be reduced" Is it basically saying don't try to hide a bunch of options behind a hamburger menu?

From the site itself:

> 1. All processes have a core of complexity that cannot be designed away and therefore must be assumed by either the system or the user.

> 2. Ensure as much as possible of the burden is lifted from users by dealing with inherent complexity during design and development.

> 3. Take care not to simplify interfaces to the point of abstraction.

Re: Laws of UX

#57

Post by JohnFen »

graypegg wrote: post #51
user3939382 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you rely on something ... aesthetic importance drops really fast IMHO it bothers me more because I'm forced to experience it more. It's like the annoyance accumulates. I may care more about UI than the average user though, or maybe I'm just more able to articulate my thoughts about it because of my profession? Not sure.

Humans are pattern-matching machines though. I think anyone, UX-designer or not, can notice annoyances that are clearly just not following the obvious pattern. I know people that have quit jobs, because they were forced to use software that “I could never learn”. (Salesforce) It got in the way of them doing their job. However, I’ve seen way more people tolerate an outdated or badly styled UI because “it just works fo…

As a dev, I've never quit a job because I didn't like the software I had to use. But if I'm evaluating whether or not to take a position somewhere, the use of certain software is certainly a mark in the minus column.

Re: Laws of UX

#58

Post by stevenwoo »

user3939382 wrote: post #47

My ideal for UX or UI is that a new user, understanding the domain and what the application is supposed to do at the most abstract level, should be able to immediately use it without any training or explanation.

That's one of the messages of The Design of Everyday Things. It's too bad Apple hired the author and ignored him.

Re: Laws of UX

#59

Post by hooverd »

timetraveller26 wrote: post #46
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.

We have made Dark mode an expected feature on UI's, hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces (anyone remember Foobar2000 or GMusicBrowser?). Home Assistant is a good example of such UI.

You used to be able to bring your own themes. Now if you're lucky, you might get dark mode, as a treat.

Re: Laws of UX

#60

Post by montroser »

For a site espousing UX platitudes, I don't feel it's too nit picky to call out their completely terrible back-button behavior.

You click on one of these items, read down the item detail page, then click back to go to back to the index page, and this happens:

- it scrolls you back to the top of the item detail page

- it fades out the detail page

- it fades in the index page

It's janky, and wastes my brain cycles trying to parse the fleeting intermediate states. Also, the fade animations are too slow -- literally making me wait through the jank to get back to the content I'm looking for...

Post reply on HN