5 ms·

Just assume your users are illiterate, innumerate, and have a broken mouse that randomly clicks and you will be fine.

by danieltillett 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nkrisc 11y ago
While I prefer to frame it with a bit more empathy, essentially, yes. This is correct.
- rakoo 11y ago
  Said differently, The User Is Drunk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk)
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I am not suggesting that you should think that your users are like this, but that you should design with this type of user in mind. Step back, put on your dunce cap, and fix the problems with your design. This raises a really interesting point which is the cognitive elite are responsible for designing systems with zero empathy for the rest of the population. It is much harder to design a system that anyone can use and most system designers really don’t make the effort.
  - nkrisc 11y ago
    The problem you bring up is very real. Who designs software and websites? People who are very good with computers. Who uses the software and websites? Mostly people who aren't good with computers. I work in a UX role and my yardstick is whether my mom would understand it.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Great approach - assuming of course that your mother is not a developer :)
rntz 11y ago
This is the opposite of what the article is saying. The users weren't clicking randomly. They were clicking with a purpose, they just didn't understand the difference between their menu bars and the ones inside the image. They had a faulty mental model, not a faulty mouse.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I think you are missing my point − if you design a UX with this user type in mind you would have avoided the problem described in the article from the beginning. The solution to robust user interfaces is not to just whack labels on images saying don’t click on this, but to step back and assume your user can’t (or won’t) read, can’t (or won’t) do anything mathematical, and also who loves to randomly click on things. Build for the worst possible user in mind and you will avoid a lot of problems. For example, if the author had assumed that people like to randomly click on things then they could have created a pop-up that said don’t click on this, use the menu above.
  - kaybe 11y ago
    Which the user then won't read?
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Then on their second random click you drag their mouse to the menu for them. Keep thinking of solutions.
5ilv3r 11y ago
Having random thrashing return useful instructions (like making the button they SHOULD be clicking on glow or blink a few times) is not a bad design pattern. Reminds me of the annoying (to me) new mac wiggle-for-massive-cursor feature.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Exactly, but you really need to get into the mindset of the random clicker user type to even think of doing this.

Just assume your users are illiterate, innumerate, and have a broken mouse that randomly clicks and you will be fine.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nkrisc 11y ago

While I prefer to frame it with a bit more empathy, essentially, yes. This is correct.

rakoo 11y ago
Said differently, The User Is Drunk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2CbbBLVaPk)
danieltillett 11y ago
I am not suggesting that you should think that your users are like this, but that you should design with this type of user in mind. Step back, put on your dunce cap, and fix the problems with your design. This raises a really interesting point which is the cognitive elite are responsible for designing systems with zero empathy for the rest of the population. It is much harder to design a system that anyone can use and most system designers really don’t make the effort.
- nkrisc 11y ago
  The problem you bring up is very real. Who designs software and websites? People who are very good with computers. Who uses the software and websites? Mostly people who aren't good with computers. I work in a UX role and my yardstick is whether my mom would understand it.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Great approach - assuming of course that your mother is not a developer :)

rntz 11y ago

This is the opposite of what the article is saying. The users weren't clicking randomly. They were clicking with a purpose, they just didn't understand the difference between their menu bars and the ones inside the image. They had a faulty mental model, not a faulty mouse.

danieltillett 11y ago
I think you are missing my point − if you design a UX with this user type in mind you would have avoided the problem described in the article from the beginning. The solution to robust user interfaces is not to just whack labels on images saying don’t click on this, but to step back and assume your user can’t (or won’t) read, can’t (or won’t) do anything mathematical, and also who loves to randomly click on things. Build for the worst possible user in mind and you will avoid a lot of problems. For example, if the author had assumed that people like to randomly click on things then they could have created a pop-up that said don’t click on this, use the menu above.
- kaybe 11y ago
  Which the user then won't read?
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Then on their second random click you drag their mouse to the menu for them. Keep thinking of solutions.

5ilv3r 11y ago

Having random thrashing return useful instructions (like making the button they SHOULD be clicking on glow or blink a few times) is not a bad design pattern. Reminds me of the annoying (to me) new mac wiggle-for-massive-cursor feature.

danieltillett 11y ago
Exactly, but you really need to get into the mindset of the random clicker user type to even think of doing this.