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

71–80 of 401 posts

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#71

Post by lolinder »

dkarl wrote: post #66
lolinder wrote: post #46

I'm not convinced. Most of the argument seems to be that redundant UX is bad UX: > But by archiving the email, the email disappears from the list, which already implies the action was successful. > In this example, the button already includes a confirmation so the toast is entirely unnecessary. I vehemently disagree with the idea that just because you're already communicating something one way it's bad UX to include…

I think the suggested improvement clarifies what he means: if you're worried that the UI element the user is interacting with doesn't fully convey what's happening, then improve that element rather than adding a second element that divides the user's attention and challenges them to read quickly and make the connection themselves. Communicate the failure of their interaction in the context of the element they interac…

I get what they were saying and agree that in-context feedback should be added wherever possible. I just disagree that leaving off the toast is (in the cases cited) valuable.

Taking the archive example: yes, the disappearing message successfully indicates that something happened. But it doesn't tell you if the message was deleted or archived, and misclicks are common. The toast unambiguously communicates what happened in addition to saying that something happened.

Additionally, I stand by my argument that consistency is valuable. By all means have in-context feedback, but also pick a standard way that you always use to communicate completion of all actions. It makes it a lot easier to understand and eventually make use of the in-context feedback which may not be as intuitive as you think it is.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#72

Post by lolinder »

latexr wrote: post #68
the_other wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a computer mainly by using a zoom tool to magnify the area around my text and mouse/finger cursoe. I miss almosst all toasts and most notifications because they not where I’m working. For my use case, feed near the item I’m interacting with is the only valuable feedback.

None of that invalidates what your parent comment is saying. They’re not saying you should use toasts to the detriment of other options, but in addition to them. If anything, your comment reinforces the notion that redundant information is beneficial because you don’t know where the user is looking.

Yes. For example: while OP uses a magnifier, lots of other people use a screen reader. "Loading indicator disappeared" is a tricky thing to communicate clearly with audio. "Toast: save successful" is trivial.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#73

Post by iambateman »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #34
iambateman wrote: post #6

Toasts are bad UX for an app which is used in a casual context, yes. The odds that an untrained user missed them and becomes confused are quite high. But there is nothing wrong with a toast in a pro app. The pro user will get used to where feedback comes from on the screen and find it is second nature to notice the toast. In practice, there are very few UX principles that generalize across every interface.

Classic. People that are bad at UX design using the “pro app” catch-all to justify all sorts of bad decisions. I spend all day in “pro apps”. I am also visually impaired. The inappropriateness of toasts has nothing to do with my familiarity with the app. I may, eventually, learn that a particular UI is using toasts to indicate something. That doesn’t suddenly make it okay. They’re still a massive pain in the ass for…

You have also used a catch-all, but yours was personal and rude. The rest of your point is useful…just please remember that there are real people typing words into this app.

To respond to your point,

(1) is it a PITA because it’s hard to see something in the periphery or for some other reason? (2) Is there an example of a web app that you’ve noticed provides feedback very well? (3) would you consider a toast acceptable when the UX designer doesn’t consider the information critical? As in…the user can safely assume their action was accomplished but a little feedback is a nice sugar.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#74

Post by toxik »

Toasts on smartphones are worse, it happens so incredibly often that YouTube obscures part of the video that I want to see with an unnecessarily large toast to tell me I did a thing. Most notably, switching quality. Or just now I enabled a beta test feature, it gave me a toast. Why?! I know what I did. The same if I click the same button again to disable the feature. At least you can dismiss them by dragging them down.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#75

Post by gherkinnn »

I agree with post and don't like toasts either.

The thing is, they don't solve a UX problem as much act as a catch-all solution for "respond to user action". It is easier for orgs to shove everything in a toast than to think about more practical places to put the data.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#79

Post by lolinder »

tomaytotomato wrote: post #70
lolinder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter to you where the jargon came from? Why are vaguely shape-related jargon and military-derived jargon and acronyms okay but you draw the line at toast?

I would argue that FUBAR, P-trap, Dequeue, HALO are going to have a less likelihood of a context collision than borrowing an existing word that is ubiquitous in society. For example in Google "toast" "toast menu" "toast ux" All yield different results However "p-trap" gets you a narrowed list of results

"Platoon" turns up military answers until I specify traffic. And I'm actually not at all sure what meaning of "HALO" you're referring to—it must be jargon not in my vocabulary, but for me it refers to a thing angels have and to a video game.

Again, it seems like you're inconsistent in applying your frustration with jargon. You're frustrated with jargon in an adjacent profession to yours, but don't seem to apply the same logic to professions that are entirely unrelated or to your own jargon.

Re: Toasts are bad UX

#80

Post by arcbyte »

lolinder wrote: post #46

I'm not convinced. Most of the argument seems to be that redundant UX is bad UX: > But by archiving the email, the email disappears from the list, which already implies the action was successful. > In this example, the button already includes a confirmation so the toast is entirely unnecessary. I vehemently disagree with the idea that just because you're already communicating something one way it's bad UX to include…

Have you worked with an old person?

Redundancy in UX confuses them. The closer you can get to the whole UI being a single sentence and two buttons the better.

Post reply on HN