Comments
Dakar-A t1_j2scz8k wrote
Yeah, hilarious that in being a UX site it's committing essentially the cardinal sin of UX.
Also a matter of knowing your users, and designing for the human- I imagine the desired audience of the site are UX professionals and people with an interest in UX, but it's presented like marketing copy for C suite folks.
But maybe that's the target audience, in which case I'd say it's successful. Would be curious to see an interview with the creator.
COSenna t1_j2sdx1b wrote
It’s quite ironic. I’ve been using this site for my job going on 3 years now (not regularly mind you) and for a lot of the laws I have to do additional research to find how it applies to the interfaces I design.
chairfairy t1_j2t95td wrote
If nothing else, it's a decent starting point to give you concepts to research. Not perfect, but still useful
rainmace t1_j2u3tf0 wrote
Loooooool. Also, I work a little in UX design. I’ve decided the whole field is a crock of shit, and the only thing that matters is, can the user do what they want on the website. Everything should fall from that, and nothing more. None of this like, the user doesn’t even KNOW what they want to do until they see all the OPTIONS we’ve given them. As long as you minimize latency and make the graphics look somewhat standardized, that’s it
jld3sign t1_j2uo8z0 wrote
Proper UX work is grounded in user-centric design, so yes it is all about 'can the user do what they want'.
Understanding that user's journey, their pain points, and what they're trying to achieve is UX. Too many see flashy User Interfaces and assume that's what UX is.
spays_marine t1_j2uvlav wrote
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with that. UX is essentially understanding human behavior, to argue that it doesn't exist or that we don't need to take it into account when designing interfaces suggests that you have a poor grasp of the subject, rather than the subject being pointless. No offense. You've also worded your opinion rather poorly so it's hard to understand what exactly you mean.
Refreshingpudding t1_j2uc2ab wrote
What are your thoughts on modern design that hides functions behind the faintest of menus? Seems like a minimalist apple thing
wattro t1_j2ufzjz wrote
Gross
shimmy_ya_shimmy_yay t1_j2vtfga wrote
UX in real life is, unfortunately, way more complex than that. In the real world, UX is a constant balance between commercial interests, business strategy, user needs, behaviors and psychology. So, if you work "a little" in UX design, I understand if you aren't aware of that complexity, but there really is much more to it than merely being the user's advocate (although this is one of the most important functions of a UX designer).
[deleted] t1_j2uvlwz wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j2vubm6 wrote
[deleted]
Colon t1_j2sal1w wrote
that leading of the top descriptions/top NAV is killing me
delphic0n t1_j2sr0rx wrote
You already knew it was going to be when you saw the link
makkolli t1_j2urjp4 wrote
Check out the book which accompanies the website, which appears to include examples. Reasonable for the author not to republish the entire thing online, I think, and helpful for what it is as a website.
sandtrout56 t1_j2v6aq3 wrote
The website is an effort to sell the book, which is available via a link at the top of the page, and promises examples of the principles. Now, I’m just guessin’, but maybe they should have made that link a bit more prominent.
MistarGrimm t1_j2vx27m wrote
> In a way, it is itself an example of the mistake of form over function.
It wants you to buy a book, not learn from their page.
[deleted] t1_j2scybn wrote
[deleted]
Protonis t1_j2s4tpe wrote
The Modern Warfare 2 Devs should see this 💀
COSenna t1_j2sdbdn wrote
Honestly, most games have horrid UX in menus and elsewhere, especially from an accessibility standpoint.
I find it amazing that some game developers spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing a game (looking at you, R*) and their menus feel like they were designed by a 9 y/o. Horrendous information architecture, layouts, readability, performative actions, etc.
RDR2’s menus are some of the worst offenders and that game is absolutely brilliant.
ejensen29 t1_j2sklgv wrote
I always thought the weapon wheel on RDR2 was well designed, for how many items you have available to use.
COSenna t1_j2smkxg wrote
The weapon wheel is just OK. Not great, not terrible. The problem is they were trying to go with a certain aesthetic and it makes all of the items incredibly hard to differentiate being that they’re all white on black with no labels. This is far worse a problem in the satchel menu and what not. The weapon wheel was easier since the shape definitions were easier to differentiate.
ejensen29 t1_j2snc1h wrote
Your points are definitely fair. I just felt like I adapted to RDR2 rather quickly, whereas I still can't figure out GTA.
COSenna t1_j2so4fv wrote
That’s a fair assessment. Perhaps they made some slight improvements compared to GTA5. I wonder how bad the menus will be in 6 lol.
Years ago I found R*’s lead UX designer on LinkedIn but was unable to message him. I wanted to see if he know what he was doing, and if so, how much leverage he had in the company to promote proper UX practices. I kinda want his job lol
Fair_Bat7623 t1_j2t4ad6 wrote
Probably not much. UX is undersold in a lot of companies because its not a money maker and doesn’t drive sales. You’d think that a good looking game would, but UX gets left on the back burner a lot compared to graphics or other tangible elements.
Working in UX is an underappreciated job. UX is essentially “making the obvious look easy”, but doesn’t realize how easy it can shift from good to bad
K_ttSnurr t1_j2tpiif wrote
Also because companies doesn't know the difference between UX and UI.
rainmace t1_j2u458t wrote
I would argue UX for a video game, a 3dimensional world, is completely different than for a website. In a video game, everything is the UX. That’s the entire point. The entire world of the video game is UX
COSenna t1_j2wrpes wrote
I definitely agree, though UX is never really associated with this level of interaction. The way the engine responds to your movements through a controller relates directly to your experience. Bad physics would yield unwanted results, thus giving the user a bad experience.
I only work on interfaces, but I’ve always thought I’d be good at “designing” game physics, or at least testing and relaying needed adjustments. It all come down to getting something to work as efficiently as possible, I suppose.
sweetalkersweetalker t1_j2sya1v wrote
It was super hard to differentiate between the options though, most looked alike. Colors would have been nice
Heffe3737 t1_j2v7hw7 wrote
/me cries in mouse and keyboard.
smengi94 t1_j2u1i2g wrote
Sometimes things working is more important then things not working.. sometimes even with angular a small change in UX means a lot of work OR even if it td suppose to be an hour or day of work it ends up being 1-4 weeks and then your breaking other stuff to get this to work. Even when according to documents it should work. Sometimes the issue is that particular version of the code or ide or servers etc that isn’t working and an unknown bug pops up. Etc I’m sure at some point they were like we gotta make this easier but to do that we would be better off waiting months of testing because it means for a small change we need to change everything anyways right? So why not just in 6 months or next warzone update or whatever we will just do it then if we need to go thru the entire code base might as well make a lot of changes. I’m not sure if I’m making sense
IllegitimateLiteracy t1_j2t9o18 wrote
>I find it amazing that some game developers spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing a game (
Makes perfect sense to me.
UX Guy: "Hey Senior Leadership I want to bring in a team of 5-10 UX developers who do nothing but make sure the menus are good. "
Leadership: "how about I hire 5-10 engine developers to make the game not run like ass instead?"
persondude27 t1_j2s6vus wrote
Haha, that was my first thought as well.
One of the guys in my squad is a marketing dude and was ranting about "depth first design" and "hulu's crappy designers" last night.
toasterstrudel2 t1_j2sr3s0 wrote
The weapon stats bars that are on a scale of what feels like 0-10,000, taking up only 1% of the screen and each attachment seems to change them ±5 out of the 10,000.
​
Squinting SO hard to see if damage increases even on my 75" tv.
DrCheekClappa t1_j2sznem wrote
My conspiracy theory is that they made the ux unintuitive on purpose. Everything else got more complicated as well, gun leveling, battle pass, attachment unlocks. They want everything as complex as possible so people need to spend more time online doing basic things.
_Constellations_ t1_j2sw6lz wrote
Endless Space 2 mastered this. If you look at it, it's kinda bland. If you play it, it's the most useful, smartly designed excel sheet ever that somehow manages to make space feel alive and rich with life.
drunkpunk138 t1_j2tk88t wrote
All modern UI developers should. I'm not sure what the hell happened over the last few years but holy shit user interfaces are becoming so useless everywhere
Gooch-Guardian t1_j2u1j6p wrote
Lmao when I saw the title I opened the thread just to comment on this. I don’t work with software or anything but it blows me away how bad it can be in mw2.
Arcadian_Parallax t1_j2sd1o7 wrote
Honestly, the whole time I was reading through the site, all I felt was:
"Wow! The design of this website really sucks!"
Tiles and text are all way too big. No real examples of anything in action. The reference links, rather than the actual content, comprise a majority of each card's page. Plus, it takes like 5 scrolls to get from the top to the bottom of a page that really has very minimal content.
puffbro t1_j2sexc4 wrote
Yea was definitely designed for mobile not computers. There should be a law about "The better a UX is for mobile/portrait, the worse it is for PCs/landscape"
fizst t1_j2sjs93 wrote
Good call. We can name it the puffbro conjecture.
Fresh_Platypus t1_j2u213g wrote
Lol, on my s10e it's still too wide, I need to side scroll
narrill t1_j2w21mu wrote
This isn't necessarily true though. For example, it's a lot easier to read text if it's in a fairly narrow column since you don't have to scan horizontally to read it.
Eightarmedpet t1_j2sxogm wrote
You sound like an over 40 developer (I’m not far off the same so not an insult). Users understand how to scroll these days and so it instinctively, size is subjective.
tlklk t1_j2s1b5a wrote
Rule number 12 of 21: The average person can only keep 7 items in their working memory 🤔
whattheydontsay t1_j2supyw wrote
It’s 3-5 things in active memory. Phone numbers and Social Security numbers are chunked into three sets for this reason. Give a user more than 3 sets of information at once and you risk them having a difficult time as their brain tries to assess priority. Also note that active memory is different than short term memory.
TheLGMac t1_j2umfsj wrote
That seven is the magic number thing wasn’t much supported since it was first published in the 50s, instead it is more task-dependent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486516/
Always important to remember that a lot of laws of anything depend on the situation.
deathgaze5 t1_j2u3a8m wrote
That explains why Netflix zoomed their web ui way the fuck in and wont let you zoom out
IllegitimateLiteracy t1_j2t9yot wrote
People don't want to believe stuff like this but its incredibly well studied and true.
But people really want to believe that they can stare at a billion things at once like they're watching the code of the matrix and then Big Brain shit.
TheLGMac t1_j2un8x6 wrote
The specific number 7 hasn’t actually been well studied or reinforced; rather, it’s the chunking aspect of Miller’s work that was salient.
This paper talks about how people just accepted the number seven as a given for forty years after Miller published and didn’t explore it further. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486516/
SvartholStjoernuson t1_j2u5ead wrote
“I spilled my water. This is really bad! I'm being electrocuted. I have to pull the plug before I die. Otherwise, I… I can't leave this room through that exit and meet Jolyne like I'm supposed to. I have something important to tell Jolyne. I got to go. She needs me. No matter what happens, I can't forget that! I have to get out of this room quickly!”
redabishai t1_j2sant2 wrote
I've heard this is why phone numbers are 7 digits. Not sure how true that is.
GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j2scnul wrote
They're 10 now
manzanita2 t1_j2siggw wrote
except most people only need to deal with a few prefixes so those are usually "chunked" into one. I'd argue for 8 "things".
chairfairy t1_j2t9fkm wrote
Before cell phones you didn't learn that many area codes, though. Because that would be a long distance call so for the most part you just learned the base 7 digits
^(867-5309)
gh0stwriter88 t1_j2skssb wrote
11+ if you include the country code.
redabishai t1_j2sl3fv wrote
Yeah, it's anecdotal but it was a nice story.
moonra_zk t1_j2sizw8 wrote
Phone number length is based on how many different numbers you need, that's why they added more digits over time.
redabishai t1_j2skgje wrote
Of course. I remember in the 90s in New England they started using the area code for local calls.
foospork t1_j2sr7a2 wrote
IIRC, the phone system was modified in the 90s to allow multiple area codes in one geographic area.
As late as the late 1970s, in some areas, if you were calling a different number in the same exchange, all you had to dial was the last 4 digits. For example, if your number was 555-1212 and you wanted to call 555-1234, all you had to dial was 1234.
Dakar-A t1_j2sdd2r wrote
Doubtful. It's also chunks of information, not just pure units- you remember 695 432 0118 better than if I had asked you to recall 6, 9, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, 1, 1, and 8.
Or if I asked you to remember "may boat horse" versus "a a b e h m o o r s t y"
aboutthednm t1_j2sg24j wrote
>Progress bars help make wait times tolerable, regardless of their accuracy.
Holy shit, I finally found literal Satan!
DevilsTrigonometry t1_j2tfdj6 wrote
I mean it's not wrong - a progress bar makes users more likely to "tolerate" an unknown wait time (vs. just thinking the site/app is frozen and closing it). And perfect accuracy isn't really necessary as long as it visibly updates often enough.
But yes, it is evil and manipulative to use a fake progress bar that's not even attempting to show real progress. Just use an animated spinner, and make sure the spinner animation is linked to some kind of occasional "are we still doing meaningful work here" check.
narrill t1_j2w2hpl wrote
The problem with a spinner is that because tons of software doesn't hook it up to a reliable "are we still doing meaningful work here" check users will assume the thing is frozen if the spinner is there for more than a few seconds. That doesn't happen with a progress bar, because it implies progress is actually happening.
cyph_8 t1_j2s4xzx wrote
Why does the website feel like font size 300? Is this only me?
cyph_8 t1_j2s5v30 wrote
Ahh, because my screen is 32"... Should a font size range be part of UX laws?
LegendOfVinnyT t1_j2sbtfs wrote
The 22nd law states that information density is for suckers. Make everything touchable by someone wearing boxing gloves, even on keyboard+mouse interfaces.
Dakar-A t1_j2sdlpp wrote
Touch/clickability is a concern! The general rule I've heard is that you want at minimum a 1 cm by 1 cm square target for anything you want users to touch on a mobile interface.
LegendOfVinnyT t1_j2sjml5 wrote
That's true, but too many designers stop at mobile and decide that "it should scale to desktop". That's how you get, well, The Laws of UX's site. It's only "progressive" in the sense that it can tell phones from not-phones, but it treats everything that's not a phone like the same device. My 11" tablet, 13" laptop, and 27" desktop monitor all show exactly 1 1/2 rows of 3 cards.
Dakar-A t1_j2smem1 wrote
Yes, that's generally how things shake out. This one seems like a personal project more than anything, but in my experience it's a miracle if you can convince a company that having separate mobile and desktop interfaces is advisable, much less getting buy-in for a fully scaling interface that adapts to screen size.
It's also difficult because outside of fully regular gridded interfaces (which, in all fairness, this site is), there are diminishing returns once you hit desktop size. And user flows can be interrupted or the false bottom effect (where there is content beyond the bottom of the screen, but the user doesn't realize it's there because what they can see cleanly cuts off at the bottom of the screen) can come into play if an interface is designed to scale with screen size.
foxtrotfire t1_j2sk3ft wrote
Unless it's a 'close', 'X' or 'reject all' button in which case it should be a 1 mm by 1 mm target blended in with the background.
Dakar-A t1_j2slkt7 wrote
Yep lmao! Those, and various other psychological or design tricks to manipulate people into doing or not doing something the company/product/designer wants are called "dark patterns".
408wij t1_j2tndmt wrote
For PowerPoint, Guy Kawasaki recommends the minimum font size equals the age of the oldest person in the audience.
Neutronic- t1_j2vwiz9 wrote
It’s usually considered a User Interface design thing (making the site look nice) versus UX, however it certainly could impact UX
xcygnusx t1_j2sd59p wrote
I miss the days when web design was centered on having all information and links together on the screen without the need to scroll around. Ever since web 2.0 and touch screens, now we get gigantic fonts, minimalist unlabeled icons, and fancy scrolling effects.
DaRKVoi t1_j2rr8ii wrote
Discovered this site a few years back and recommended it to everyone who joins my team. Interesting stuff.
Abhi_GGMU t1_j2rvs4h wrote
What's your favourite law among the 21?
currywurst777 t1_j2ry47m wrote
Can someone explain the takeaways 1. and 3. for the Law of Prägnanz to me?
while-eating-pasta t1_j2s11f9 wrote
The more complex the graphic the more detail the viewer will skip over.
Basic plain circle and circle with dot in the middle? You'll spot the difference easily so they work as two distinct elements.
22 sided polygon with gothic inspired pattern in the middle vs 18 sided polygon with art nouveau pattern? The viewer will simplify them down to "circle with stuff inside" and miss the differences.
currywurst777 t1_j2s2xg2 wrote
Use easy shapes got it.
CornCheeseMafia t1_j2sa9yn wrote
Why use complex shape when simple shape do trick
SadSplinter t1_j2w1m8w wrote
Simple as
sleepyeyessleep t1_j2sawyf wrote
Maybe if your filtering for a specific type of person?
constant_mass t1_j2skh7c wrote
Digon best shape
[deleted] t1_j2s6aru wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j2rzcal wrote
[deleted]
arothmanmusic t1_j2sjbbc wrote
They're missing "Users tend to think differently than developers; what seems obvious and simple to the person who wrote the code may be inscrutable to the person attempting to use the product."
maowai t1_j2uj1zj wrote
Hence why UX Designer is a job.
Emeraldish t1_j2swni7 wrote
Postel's 'law', namely to be flexible in the input you accept but not in your output and feedback, is somewhat related. But it does not fully cover it...
whattheydontsay t1_j2swh4y wrote
A daily painful part of my job. Having developers question every step with smart solutions but solutions that someone’s grandma in Nebraska would never understand. Good UX is for everyone.
Blukoi t1_j2ug1dn wrote
In the UX world these “laws” aren’t named or referred to as such. This guy took existing concepts, like Gestalt design theory, and named them as laws so he can sell his book and related materials.
Calling them laws gives the implication that they should always be followed, but the whole point of UX is that you start with a ton of research to figure out what ideas will apply or not.
Dogsbottombottom t1_j2uv5i1 wrote
This website always annoys me because of this. I've been working in UX for 10 years, most of these rules never get referred to by these names.
Your point about the "laws" is a good one. At the beginning of my career I thought I was like the UX Ranger, there to lay down UX Laws to the uninitiated around me. Took a few years until I realized I needed to shut the fuck up, ask more questions, listen more, and that in general things are always pretty murky and dependent on the specific situation.
vampiire t1_j2w9wzm wrote
I am a dev but want to learn about UX to be a better teammate with our designer. I often butt heads with “function over form” but i know there must be some balance between them that is better serving to pursue.
The other day I did some reading and learned the original quote was “function before form”. Which I thought was a rephrasing but was expounded to mean that first understand the user and what you want to provide them / what they are looking for then build an engaging form around it.
In other words form without function constrains usage. And function without form doesn’t inspire usage. They must both be present. One doesn’t outweigh the other but they serve different purposes, to understand the right form is to define the function.
Did I understand that correctly?
What do you and /u/Blukoi suggest to learn? Any books or courses? General advice or stand out points over your years working? Specifically on the practical and research side.
Dogsbottombottom t1_j2wumoo wrote
Yes, I think you explained that quite well.
TBH I don't think that UX is that esoteric or difficult to learn. A lot of it is just the mindset of prioritizing the user. There's certainly aspects that are more complex, and the further you get into the "design" aspect, the more creative skill is required. Being familiar with interaction patterns is important. These days design systems have taken over the web so you're probably not going to be designing from zero anyway.
If you're looking to be a good dev partner to your design team I'd try to get more involved in their process. Depends on your specific business obviously. I've spent most of my career in agencies and consultancies so the answer to "why" is frequently "because they wanted it that way".
vampiire t1_j2ycq7w wrote
Ya I work closely with our director of design (we are friends and I’m generally interested). I’m backend but have always had an interest in UX despite being awful at UI.
I’m wondering how to understand the end user better. It’s a relatively niche space and I don’t think it’s feasible to poll them or get extended feedback. Are there any good practices for narrowing down a user mindset in a more generic way?
Dakar-A t1_j2scig5 wrote
This is a lot better than the last time it was posted. I still have some gripes with how many of them are presented as "laws", but many important UX concepts here.
belizeanheat t1_j2st9ck wrote
Beautiful is a mighty stretch
DMs_Apprentice t1_j2tcszi wrote
So, they talk about laws of user experience and design, yet have gigantic-ass fonts that make the site barely-usable on desktop. Seems like this site was designed with only mobile use in mind, as that seems like it's formatted a little better (though, still not great). A great example of poor UX/UI execution.
codedude25 t1_j2tqccs wrote
Ugh, user design of this page is horrible which such HUGE logos and text. I actually can't handle reading it. Which is odd for a UX design site.
Who's going to read a site that's design is so bad?
dookiebuttholepeepee t1_j2scveq wrote
> Provide system feedback within 400 ms in order to keep users’ attention and increase productivity.
That’s… that’s slightly better than twice a second. What sort of feedback they need so often to keep them interested? Damn. Imagine if while shopping Amazon they flashed a thumbs up emoji every 400ms.
puffbro t1_j2se949 wrote
I think it meant when user did an action (touch/click), it feels bad if the feedback (pop up/drop down) takes >400ms to appear.
So not every 400ms but within 400ms after actions.
dookiebuttholepeepee t1_j2sg2sn wrote
Ah. Yea that makes more sense.
GagOnMacaque t1_j2sjs7w wrote
Microsoft, your ribbon UX could use a little professional redux. A decade later and that monstrosity is still shittier than a standard menu.
[deleted] t1_j2t19i0 wrote
[deleted]
GagOnMacaque t1_j312cpd wrote
With my old boss' permission we did an experiment.
We had experienced and inexperienced users complete normal and unusual tasks in both old word and the ribbon.
The data was crazy. It took several minutes more to do normal tasks in the ribbon, and about 30m to an hour to complete obscure tasks. Some tasks were not completed at all. Meanwhile a simple menu yielded results within seconds.
The ribbon is clearly not a good ui.
I AM currious how that experiment would turn out today, after an entire generation has lived with it.
SDSunDiego t1_j2t579x wrote
<400ms, rofl. It takes about 45 seconds for my client data to load using Salesforce Lighting. Happens on different computers and at different locations.
It hurts my mind that this has NOT been addressed at my organization where time is extremely important for generating sales.
OppenheimersGuilt t1_j2u2l2m wrote
Add a progress bar.
smirks to self smugly
Subduction t1_j2u2hoz wrote
> "Hick's Law: The time it takes to make a decision increases with the number and complexity of choices."
Is that the bar for having something named after you? Because that seems super-obvious.
>"Subduction's Law: A user's hunger increases with the time since they last ate."
Named law certificate please.
art-man_2018 t1_j2tgf6q wrote
Plot Twist: There are no rules, much less anyone following them.
macefelter t1_j2tjzo2 wrote
Needs larger font size.
FlashMcSuave t1_j2u5x5a wrote
Parkinson's Law - any task will inflate until all of the available time is spent.
Huh, so they explained procrastination. I am going to mull on this for exactly 22 minutes until my next meeting starts.
cartesianfaith t1_j2s5ghh wrote
Interestingly, I imagine these "laws" help explain how conspiracy theories develop.
YouJustSaidButFuck t1_j2s5nvw wrote
Who is Lawso, and what does he Fux?
redabishai t1_j2sar7s wrote
*whom do they fux
Furlz t1_j2swh94 wrote
As someone planning on going into ux this is awesome, thanks
MaximumEffort433 t1_j2t21pp wrote
Somebody send this to TeamNinja.
pennies4change t1_j2u7itb wrote
Is my wife prägnanz?
Captain_Comic t1_j2ujokp wrote
Pirates of Prägnanz is my favorite musical
wgwgbmp t1_j2v9ctg wrote
All I see is laws o fux
namisysd t1_j35qh1k wrote
That's a lot of laws for such subjective concepts.
alexcrouse t1_j2ut0lo wrote
Start with 20 years ago when software wasn't absolute trash.
Then increase the resolution on your WORKING SOFTWARE. Make sure everything is consistent.
Fix everything as you go. Any aesthetic choice that breaks a feature must be immediately undone.
Make it as unlike windows 10 or mac as possible.
I'm not using a tablet, i never want a garbage vertical interface. Even on my phone.
spays_marine t1_j2v34a5 wrote
Books are vertical interfaces.
Some people want something different from what they think they want, and most would not even consider that what they want and what their subconscious wants are two different things.
You want what you want because you're human and it is largely hardwired, that's why millions are poured into user analysis. If you actually knew what you wanted, Google would pay you 50 bucks to tell them and call it a day.
That's not to say that there isn't ample room for critique on modern design trends, but to reduce it to "it was better in the olden days!", just brings pictures of Abe Simpson. A lot of the interface designs we see these days are a result of studies that show us what works, so there is a lot of improvement. There's just a very low entry to interface design these days, and the internet made us deal with all kinds countless times more than we did before, so we just see a lot more crappy ones as well.
dahauns t1_j2wgkeo wrote
> Books are vertical interfaces.
Last time I checked, the central mode of user interaction - i.e. turning the page - is almost always strictly horizontal.
spays_marine t1_j2xjjr0 wrote
The central mode of user interaction is reading from top to bottom along a left justified vertical axis. There are specific rules about line width and even word count per line because we experience them as awkward and hard to follow if they approach a rather horizontal orientation.
ThriceFive t1_j2v9cvy wrote
Really good link I wasn't aware of - sometimes even just knowing the name of the principle is enough to dig in deeper. Thanks OP.
hydeeho85 t1_j2te0xj wrote
I have a poster of these framed on my office wall. Lead UX consultant.
kepler1 t1_j2s73mv wrote
It would be so much more useful if the linked site weren't just a nice-looking page giving the written definitions of the concepts, but actually showed examples of the effects/principles that they're seeking to convey. It's a beautiful website, sure (how much time did the person spend on those symbols/tiles alone?), but not what I expect when someone stands up an entire website to show graphical concepts.
In a way, it is itself an example of the mistake of form over function.