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

Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

tibinotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 190 posts

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#91

Post by whstl »

hnthrow90348765 wrote: post #89
caseyohara wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very difficult to create good UX by design because evaluating the system by imagination is much harder than with an implementation. This is precisely why it’s a tragedy that the roles in software development have become so compartmentalized. It wasn’t that long ago that the same person designing an interface was also responsible for developing it. Or that design and development were one and the same, part of t…

Make them learn coding instead of adding yet another responsibility onto developers.

Nobody is suggesting adding this responsibility to developers, but what actually happened was that developers who can design are almost forbidden from doing so, unless they are in positions of power.

Some of us have lost our voice when it comes to design.

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#93

Post by guappa »

Kwpolska wrote: post #57
psadri wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root cause is that web browsers were designed for document delivery but are used for building application UIs. The browsers don’t offer a standard set of common application UI components, so every team builds their own leading to inconsistency and half baked implementations. In contrast, when you build a native app, developers can draw on a standard set of OS provided UI widgets.

OS widget libraries aren't always big enough to solve all problems. On the web, there are many frameworks that provide widgets for typical use cases. But even if you have a library with hundreds of widgets, you can still make a terrible UX if you don't understand good design, and many programmers don't.

In my experience most designers don't know what UX is. They think their job is to make it look pretty. If it needs 3x more clicks to do the same thing as before so be it.

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#94

Post by SecretDreams »

dchest wrote: post #88
rich_sasha wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most expensive pieces of software around is a Bloomberg Terminal, with base price starting at 20k/yr/license, plus more for extra data. And the UI, when you first use it, is beyond clunky. It looks seriously like a piece of stone age technology, adapted from clay tablets. Even the styling is like 80s films about edgy hackers and their punch cards. Except when you talk to the grey hairs, you realize that UI…

Speaking as someone who has never used it but has spent some time researching it, the Bloomberg Terminal constantly undergoes UI changes, though not in a dramatic way. It's obvious if you look at screenshots throughout the time (it even had some gradients!). It has had its own "rewrites in Svelte", transitioning from a custom renderer to HTML/JavaScript. But you're correct - they don't mess with it, they slightly and…

> and someone who learned it in 80s could use it without problems today.

That's the true dream. Like all of those old movies where the hacker or fighter pilot has to use some foreign, alien or futuristic tech and they just use it!

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#96

Post by throwaway24124 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #61
hliyan wrote: post #29

To me, peak usability was 25 years ago, when most applications had a toolbar and a menu that followed a standard pattern. If you're a frequent, non-power-user, you use the toolbar (e.g. "insert row" button). If you're an infrequent non-power-user, you go through the menu (Insert > Row Above). If you're a power user, you remember the shortcuts indicated through underlined letters in menu labels (e.g. Alt, I, A). If yo…

One of the most expensive pieces of software around is a Bloomberg Terminal, with base price starting at 20k/yr/license, plus more for extra data. And the UI, when you first use it, is beyond clunky. It looks seriously like a piece of stone age technology, adapted from clay tablets. Even the styling is like 80s films about edgy hackers and their punch cards. Except when you talk to the grey hairs, you realize that UI…

Well, it depends on the audience of your software. Bloomberg Terminal is awesome, but has a steep learning curve. Most people who learn to use it are learning it with the specific intention of finding a job where they are paid to know how to use the Bloomberg Terminal. I agree, the UI is awesome for that, but if your startup is an app to find a dog walker or something, the vast majority of your potential users are going to be turned off by the Bloomberg Terminal interface.

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#97

Post by CharlieDigital »

That was a lot of words to say "Jakob's Law"[0]

    "Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know."
    
    "1. Users will transfer expectations they have built around one familiar product to another that appears similar."
    
    "2. By leveraging existing mental models, we can create superior user experiences in which the users can focus on their tasks rather than on learning new models."

    "3. When making changes, minimize discord by empowering users to continue using a familiar version for a limited time."
[0] https://lawsofux.com/jakobs-law/

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#98

Post by rchaud »

We need a part 2 for this, the stage after you've picked up a bag of VC money:

1) Add an AI chatbot to every screen, add "AI-powered" to the homepage headline

2) On the pricing page, title the top tier as "Call our Sales Team"

3) Make buttons with undesirable actions hard to see and click ("Cancel Plan")

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#99

Post by rchaud »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #97

That was a lot of words to say "Jakob's Law"[0] "Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know." "1. Users will transfer expectations they have built around one familiar product to another that appears similar." "2. By leveraging existing mental models, we can create superior user experiences in which the users can f…

There's an enormous difference between HCI and UX.

HCI relates to computer usability for general use cases. A CAD program is there to help you get tasks done, not waste your time, so must follow general HCI principles.

UX is watered down HCI that takes business considerations into account. Think about how Microsoft jams a Copilot button into everything, all the way down to the blinking cursor. That doesn't help users (and it is not removable), but it helps Microsoft claim it added 100+ million Copilot users.

The UX of Facebook is a huge mess, a never-ending, non-chronological scroll of dopamine slot machines. HCI considerations would posit that going back to the algo-free, chronological version would help users "get what they want" faster. But helping users complete tasks faster hurts how much FB can charge advertisers for your attention.

Re: Practical UX for startups surviving without a designer

#100

Post by bewo001 »

hliyan wrote: post #29

To me, peak usability was 25 years ago, when most applications had a toolbar and a menu that followed a standard pattern. If you're a frequent, non-power-user, you use the toolbar (e.g. "insert row" button). If you're an infrequent non-power-user, you go through the menu (Insert > Row Above). If you're a power user, you remember the shortcuts indicated through underlined letters in menu labels (e.g. Alt, I, A). If yo…

yes, IBM's CUA wasn't that bad. 'F1' for help is one remnant of this.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access)

Post reply on HN