6 ms·
Author here. The point here is not the trash, I go by those bins twice a day and can affor to think a few more seconds if I am carrying something unusual. Plus
by 0xF2 9y ago
Author here. The point here is not the trash, I go by those bins twice a day and can affor to think a few more seconds if I am carrying something unusual. Plus it makes you feel like you are part of a bigger cause to put near-zero effort to help save the planet.
The point is software. There I should not spend a fraction of a second thinking, because that does not happen twice a day. It happens every 15 minutes if we are talking about me looking at my phone. UX thinking there makes a real, tangible difference.
- catnaroek 9y agoThen allow people to automate it themselves according to what they think is best. Who put “UX designers” in the business of deciding what my habits should be? From one of the pictures on your post: > We guide every interaction. This is as fascist as it gets.
- sslayer 9y agoExactly - Removing options and "thinking" for the user removes freedom. I agree that is okay to "hide" options and "think" for the user, as long as those options utimately can be "unhidden". I want my UX to be intuitive and easy to use, but what If I want to customize my UI for my own experience?
- jaxn 9y agoWho gets to define the options that are available? Shouldn't the developer of the software get to decide what their software does and doesn't do? You want me to spend money developing and supporting options that I would rather not build & support?
- 0xF2 9y agoThe designer in the software team gets to decide what is available. Software that has no design has in itself been designed, but the choices were made by a developer instead. There is nothing inappropriate about one vendor making choices. to continue the Apple example, they make 8 of the reasonably complete smartphones you could choose to buy. If you were forced to buy Apple's phone, that would be another matter, but you get to choose.
- Qwertious 9y ago> Shouldn't the developer of the software get to decide what their software does and doesn't do? You want me to spend money developing and supporting options that I would rather not build & support? In the long term, yes - the customer decides, because it's the customer providing the money. Now, there's the whole "the customer is NOT always right, because the customer is often a clueless moron" problem, but ultimately, it's the customer's money to spend (or not spend).
- tyingq 9y agoThe analogy might work better if you went into why the idea of reducing to one or two bins was the best solution. Is that better than, for example 3 bins "aluminum cans", "plastic bottles" and "everything else"? By what measure? Without the background, it just sort of sounds like "consult your UX people for the answer, always...we're never wrong".
- carwheel10 9y agoWhat do you think of my solution posted above?
- 0xF2 9y agoI like it better than reading different signs in every office I visit. In the US the problem however is that recycling collection is not standardized. Each city does it differently, which gets in the way of the standardization you propose. We would need a Federal standard (or at least an agreement by the relevant industry association) to help there.
- carwheel10 9y agoNot necessarily although a federal standard would help. A single big state like California could implement it and the standard would propagate itself from there.