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

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Laws of UX

#81

Post by ris58h »

JohnFen wrote: post #48
uxcolumbo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Which apps have you stopped using because the UX choices. The biggest example for me is Firefox. FF's UX has always been horrible, but until the revamp, it was always possible to configure it to be OK without a great deal of effort. After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. > And what are those things that mad…

> FF's UX has always been horrible

I've used it for years. It can browse sites, manage tabs and so on. Even synchronization between devices works fine. There are some issues but I wouldn't call it horrible. Could you elaborate more?

Re: Laws of UX

#82

Post by jonny_eh »

chrstphrknwtn wrote: post #73
jonny_eh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "montroser principal": "Enough with the animations already".

No, it's important that every single element vertically slide and fade in as I scroll the page. How am I supposed to know this is "design".

That's the "chrstphrknwtn principal", use whichever principal best applies.

Re: Laws of UX

#83

Post by ris58h »

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.

> hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces

I hope we won't. Why do you need this? What issue will you solve with it?

Re: Laws of UX

#84

Post by markeibes »

jonny_eh wrote: post #66
montroser wrote: post #60

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 tryi…

The "montroser principal": "Enough with the animations already".

The orthography principle.

Re: Laws of UX

#85

Post by JohnFen »

kaba0 wrote: post #76
JohnFen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which apps have you stopped using because the UX choices. The biggest example for me is Firefox. FF's UX has always been horrible, but until the revamp, it was always possible to configure it to be OK without a great deal of effort. After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. > And what are those things that mad…

> After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. It has become HTML-rendered, if anything, shouldn’t it be more configurable?

It depends on how you mean. If you're a web dev, and/or willing to mess with CSS, then perhaps it's more configurable? But there is significant friction in doing so, even if you do know how to work at that level. In terms of what normal users can realistically do, the browser is much less configurable.

Also, that pretty much only affects the look, it doesn't affect how the browser behaves.

Re: Laws of UX

#86

Post by JohnFen »

marcosdumay wrote: post #79
JohnFen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might also be why I've come to associate slick, pretty interfaces with substandard software/websites.

Interestingly, I do share this association, I have seen more people react this way, and I have seen more people consciously describe that association. But I've never seen anybody having this as a first reaction to some software. It needs some time to kick in.

> But I've never seen anybody having this as a first reaction to some software. It needs some time to kick in.

It used to take time, but the association has become common enough that it's a red flag right at the start for me. It won't make me not try it out, of course, but it does set a certain expectation in me.

The effect is strongest with websites. I think the correlation between being pretty/shiny and the site being generally worthless is high enough to be roughly predictive.

Re: Laws of UX

#87

Post by kepler »

carlosjobim wrote: post #72
kepler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more suitable comparison might be this: envision yourself at a Michelin-starred restaurant, placing an order, only to have your meal instantly served. This leads to a crucial question: would you prefer to represent the immediacy of a fast-food establishment or the meticulousness of a Michelin-starred restaurant? Ultimately, HCI aims to create solutions that mirror the conceptual models of the real world.

Funny example! I used to work in a place like that, and we could make many plates extremely fast, and sometimes getting a head start from overhearing the clients order while they were still talking to the waiter. And yes, sometimes we would wait a little bit to get the food out, just because it would be weird for the client to get his food instantly. But apart from that, clients usually appreciated getting their food…

My point is, context shapes the approach in computer interaction. Certain actions like ordering Uber involve wait and load times, while others don't. Theee is no one-size-fits-all solution. The system should harmonize with the user, bridging the gap between existing conceptual models.

Re: Laws of UX

#88

Post by [deleted] »

montroser wrote: post #60

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 tryi…

[deleted]

Re: Laws of UX

#89

Post by AtNightWeCode »

lexicality wrote: post #4
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.

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

BS. Google have shown that any time loss in any stage of any payment process directly affect conversion rates.

Re: Laws of UX

#90

Post by carlosjobim »

kepler wrote: post #87
carlosjobim wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny example! I used to work in a place like that, and we could make many plates extremely fast, and sometimes getting a head start from overhearing the clients order while they were still talking to the waiter. And yes, sometimes we would wait a little bit to get the food out, just because it would be weird for the client to get his food instantly. But apart from that, clients usually appreciated getting their food…

My point is, context shapes the approach in computer interaction. Certain actions like ordering Uber involve wait and load times, while others don't. Theee is no one-size-fits-all solution. The system should harmonize with the user, bridging the gap between existing conceptual models.

If we go back to the original example. Some hotel booking aggregators still show the fake "Looking for best deals..." popup or screen. The largest aggregator Booking.com doesn't show any such thing, but instead loads the results as fast as it can.

As for disorienting, there are ways to avoid that without slowing the user down - I think in almost every situation or use case.

Post reply on HN