5 ms·

I can believe that in your user testing people would score a non-spa higher, but that isn't relevant to the question of whether an spa had more complex state ma

I can believe that in your user testing people would score a non-spa higher, but that isn't relevant to the question of whether an spa had more complex state management hidden from the user than a mpa. What I imagine happened in your tests is, you didn't compare two different implementations of the same UI, you implemented the form via two different UI's and the users preferred the experience of new one to the old one. I believe that you compared different UI's because otherwise you wouldn't need user testing: you could just measure the latency and code complexity. The person you are responding to is saying, for a fixed user interface design, the necessary state management will be the same and your only choice is how to implement it. You say you believe this to be false but it doesn't seem like you are responding to the point.

whatpadk 8y ago
Isn't it unuseful to be pedantic to the point of completely missing the point of the post you're replying to? That person had something to contribute that was worthwhile. Sorry it wasn't a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial, but it was still useful info and very much related to the topic replied to. You must've missed the "vs plain HTML forms" part.
- BlackFly 8y ago
  As a top level comment, it is valuable to point out that many executions of SPAs are lack lustre and will not deliver a superior user experience. If it was a top level comment and didn't lead with contradiction of the prior comment, I would have affirmed and probably not have posted anything. That is why I started by telling the commenter that I believed he actually produced better implementations, because he has a point but not a point that is meaningful to back up his disagreement. The point of the comment chain in question is that a given UI has a need for a given amount of state. That is the point that was "[believed] false" and the point I was reiterating. User feedback is not useful at all for determining whether SPA's will require more state than multiple "plain HTML form"s. Moreover, the key assertion of the article is that this is necessarily the case, a point which is asserted without evidence and used as the foundation of the entire article. If you remove that assertion, the whole article collapses.
- davvolun 8y ago
  The comparison doesn't make sense though. There's absolutely no reason you can't build an interface using single-page that functions to the end-user identically to any multi-page form. You can't necessarily do the reverse (multi-page to emulate single page), but that is also irrelevant to the top level -- if the SPA has 10 times the complexity to build an identical UI, then it's probably going to be harder to maintain for no value to the end user (which isn't to say no value). What I got is that they built different UIs and found one of those UIs was better than the others; that says nothing about single-page vs multi-page. Maybe it was easier for them to build the "winning" UI as a multi-page app, but I didn't see that being said.

whatpadk 8y ago

Isn't it unuseful to be pedantic to the point of completely missing the point of the post you're replying to? That person had something to contribute that was worthwhile. Sorry it wasn't a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial, but it was still useful info and very much related to the topic replied to. You must've missed the "vs plain HTML forms" part.

BlackFly 8y ago
As a top level comment, it is valuable to point out that many executions of SPAs are lack lustre and will not deliver a superior user experience. If it was a top level comment and didn't lead with contradiction of the prior comment, I would have affirmed and probably not have posted anything. That is why I started by telling the commenter that I believed he actually produced better implementations, because he has a point but not a point that is meaningful to back up his disagreement. The point of the comment chain in question is that a given UI has a need for a given amount of state. That is the point that was "[believed] false" and the point I was reiterating. User feedback is not useful at all for determining whether SPA's will require more state than multiple "plain HTML form"s. Moreover, the key assertion of the article is that this is necessarily the case, a point which is asserted without evidence and used as the foundation of the entire article. If you remove that assertion, the whole article collapses.
davvolun 8y ago
The comparison doesn't make sense though. There's absolutely no reason you can't build an interface using single-page that functions to the end-user identically to any multi-page form. You can't necessarily do the reverse (multi-page to emulate single page), but that is also irrelevant to the top level -- if the SPA has 10 times the complexity to build an identical UI, then it's probably going to be harder to maintain for no value to the end user (which isn't to say no value). What I got is that they built different UIs and found one of those UIs was better than the others; that says nothing about single-page vs multi-page. Maybe it was easier for them to build the "winning" UI as a multi-page app, but I didn't see that being said.