3 ms·

Isn't it obvious to check how much of the checkmarks there is before you start unchecking them? In order to do so, you have to scroll to the bottom of the page

by r3bl 10y ago

Isn't it obvious to check how much of the checkmarks there is before you start unchecking them? In order to do so, you have to scroll to the bottom of the page. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you'll notice that there's a "save settings" button, and without clicking on the bottom, you'll be unchecking them for nothing. And if you notice that button, you're going to notice "unsubscribe from all emails" link right below it. I don't see that as being more crappy UX than the rest of the Goodreads design.

Ensorceled 10y ago
Clearly, it wasn't obvious the author of the article and, probably, to the people that are upvoting it. Pointing out one part of a UI has bad UX doesn't imply that the author thinks the rest is better.
tragic 10y ago
If there are about 50 possible actions to take on the page, and one of them is literally the last action, even after the 'save your settings' button, then that action is about as non-obvious as it can get while still being present in legible text. Flip it around - if you wanted an action to be obvious, would you put it there? As a comparison, look at meetup.com, a similar endeavour in a lot of ways: their email notification screen[0] has a 'turn off' button before any of the individual checkboxes, which turns them all off (except password resets and the like). [0] https://www.meetup.com/account/comm/ https://www.meetup.com/account/comm/
wowsig 10y ago
"I don't see that as being more crappy UX than the rest of the Goodreads design." I've seen this mentioned a lot of times on various forums. GoodReads by design doesn't look as good as any other social service we use now. But I am curious, whether that can be something an incumbent service can work on. Providing great design and with GoodReads functionality, would that work for the new service?
nkoren 10y ago
> Isn't it obvious to check [___ ____ __ ___ __________ etc...] If you're asking this, in the context of a discussion about UI, the answer is almost always "no".

by r3bl 10y ago

Ensorceled 10y ago

Clearly, it wasn't obvious the author of the article and, probably, to the people that are upvoting it. Pointing out one part of a UI has bad UX doesn't imply that the author thinks the rest is better.

tragic 10y ago

If there are about 50 possible actions to take on the page, and one of them is literally the last action, even after the 'save your settings' button, then that action is about as non-obvious as it can get while still being present in legible text. Flip it around - if you wanted an action to be obvious, would you put it there? As a comparison, look at meetup.com, a similar endeavour in a lot of ways: their email notification screen[0] has a 'turn off' button before any of the individual checkboxes, which turns them all off (except password resets and the like). [0] https://www.meetup.com/account/comm/ https://www.meetup.com/account/comm/

wowsig 10y ago

"I don't see that as being more crappy UX than the rest of the Goodreads design." I've seen this mentioned a lot of times on various forums. GoodReads by design doesn't look as good as any other social service we use now. But I am curious, whether that can be something an incumbent service can work on. Providing great design and with GoodReads functionality, would that work for the new service?

nkoren 10y ago

> Isn't it obvious to check [___ ____ __ ___ __________ etc...] If you're asking this, in the context of a discussion about UI, the answer is almost always "no".