4 ms·
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 diff
by 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 agoI 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 agoWhich the user then won't read?
- danieltillett 11y agoThen on their second random click you drag their mouse to the menu for them. Keep thinking of solutions.