4 ms·

Game engines are a place where it makes sense to roll your own UI framework many times, so on that point I agree with you. The purpose of a game is generally im

by npunt 8y ago

Game engines are a place where it makes sense to roll your own UI framework many times, so on that point I agree with you. The purpose of a game is generally immersion and escape, so makes sense to remove users from their device's UI in many instances. Game UIs tend to have their own conventions so frequent players don't have much of a learning curve. But in general players accept some learning curve because games are about taking on a challenge. However, apps are not games. They're tools. And tools are not about giving your users challenges. They're about fulfilling a purpose as easily as possible. UI frameworks and conventions matter here because they lower the learning curve and cognitive switching cost, and they respect a user's preferences for how they wish to engage with their device (including valuable OS-wide capabilities like accessibility). Companies that choose to use their own UI frameworks or avoid the platform's guidelines are doing so to the detriment of their user experience. - Some do it accidentally, because they don't know the UX guidelines or subtleties of the platform - Some do it for expedience, because they need to put out a product quickly with few resources - Some do it strategically, because they want the user experience worse since it serves other purposes for them Yes, UI frameworks change as OSes change, but it's rarely for 'no reason'. Stepping back, devices have gotten way more capable and their UX way more sophisticated... which does necessitate change. Though that's some extra work for developers, it's not about you. It's about your users.

freedomben 8y ago
What sort of "other purposes" would it serve for the UX to be worse? Do you have any IRL examples of this happening?
- npunt 8y ago
  Sure I wrote them in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18604613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18604613
fit2rule 8y ago
There are so many aspects of modern UI that are not functional, and serve only to distinguish one platform from another in the wider market-place - so I feel that your statement that the OS-provided UI is a 'tool' is misguided. There is nothing tool-like about making me wait for a swipe scroll to complete - this is a game mechanic designed to entertain. And in that sense, its quite possible to make a non-native UI that is more productive than the OS-provided UI - you merely have to take responsibility for the user experience, obviously.. So yes, its about the user. One reason for going non-native and rolling-your-own, is to ensure that your user has a positive experience, no matter what platform they are using - and this directly competes with the platform-vendors ability to woo new users with fancy, game-like, UI elements. So I don't think this point is quite correct: >Companies that choose to use their own UI frameworks or avoid the platform's guidelines are doing so to the detriment of their user experience. Developers that choose to use their own UI framework win or lose on the basis of how responsible they are for making sure the user has a good time with their UI. This has nothing to do with whether the app is a game or a tool or whatever. Its a matter of competence.
- npunt 8y ago
  Let me restate what you're saying to see if I understand it: A product that looks the same across platforms is better than a product that adapts itself to the platform it is on, in part because platforms have a lot of UX that isn't good. My argument for why its better to adapt a product to the platform is threefold: 1. Users have made the choice to use a particular platform and either like or at least tolerate that platform's approach to UX. When in Rome. 2. Users are using many apps not just the one you made. This is about scope. You can't just optimize your app in isolation, you have to take into consideration the entire scope of usage on a platform. It's certainly possible to create the perfect UX for a given set of tasks a user has to perform in an app, but drop that into a platform and its likely you've just added a huge learning curve and ongoing cognitive load. 3. Users mostly do not use your app on different platforms. Users probably own either iOS or Android. If they own one, they aren't even aware of how the other one works. And on desktop, who cares because screen size and pointing device differences necessitate different UX anyway. ---- I think there are some instances where having the exact same UX on very different platforms is more ideal UX for the user, but only after it's acknowledged that a) its not just a proxy argument for being easier on the developer/designer, b) its not just the result of developer/company tunnel vision which leads to the assumption that users care about the app as much as the developer/company does, c) users actively want a different experience (e.g. immersive game), and/or d) users are moving more frequently between platforms than different apps on platforms (e.g. a business use case). From a business perspective it's certainly fine to choose to use a cross-platform kit as there's many reasons to do so, I'm just arguing that it's not ideal for the user the majority of the time. As far as whether platforms have not-good UX, I mostly disagree. I'd need to see examples of what you're talking about. If by swipe scroll you mean momentum scrolling I disagree. That has great utility on small screens to traverse large lists and it grounds the device in physical metaphors. It's a fantastic UX innovation.

by npunt 8y ago

freedomben 8y ago

What sort of "other purposes" would it serve for the UX to be worse? Do you have any IRL examples of this happening?

npunt 8y ago
Sure I wrote them in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18604613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18604613

fit2rule 8y ago

There are so many aspects of modern UI that are not functional, and serve only to distinguish one platform from another in the wider market-place - so I feel that your statement that the OS-provided UI is a 'tool' is misguided. There is nothing tool-like about making me wait for a swipe scroll to complete - this is a game mechanic designed to entertain. And in that sense, its quite possible to make a non-native UI that is more productive than the OS-provided UI - you merely have to take responsibility for the user experience, obviously.. So yes, its about the user. One reason for going non-native and rolling-your-own, is to ensure that your user has a positive experience, no matter what platform they are using - and this directly competes with the platform-vendors ability to woo new users with fancy, game-like, UI elements. So I don't think this point is quite correct: >Companies that choose to use their own UI frameworks or avoid the platform's guidelines are doing so to the detriment of their user experience. Developers that choose to use their own UI framework win or lose on the basis of how responsible they are for making sure the user has a good time with their UI. This has nothing to do with whether the app is a game or a tool or whatever. Its a matter of competence.

npunt 8y ago
Let me restate what you're saying to see if I understand it: A product that looks the same across platforms is better than a product that adapts itself to the platform it is on, in part because platforms have a lot of UX that isn't good. My argument for why its better to adapt a product to the platform is threefold: 1. Users have made the choice to use a particular platform and either like or at least tolerate that platform's approach to UX. When in Rome. 2. Users are using many apps not just the one you made. This is about scope. You can't just optimize your app in isolation, you have to take into consideration the entire scope of usage on a platform. It's certainly possible to create the perfect UX for a given set of tasks a user has to perform in an app, but drop that into a platform and its likely you've just added a huge learning curve and ongoing cognitive load. 3. Users mostly do not use your app on different platforms. Users probably own either iOS or Android. If they own one, they aren't even aware of how the other one works. And on desktop, who cares because screen size and pointing device differences necessitate different UX anyway. ---- I think there are some instances where having the exact same UX on very different platforms is more ideal UX for the user, but only after it's acknowledged that a) its not just a proxy argument for being easier on the developer/designer, b) its not just the result of developer/company tunnel vision which leads to the assumption that users care about the app as much as the developer/company does, c) users actively want a different experience (e.g. immersive game), and/or d) users are moving more frequently between platforms than different apps on platforms (e.g. a business use case). From a business perspective it's certainly fine to choose to use a cross-platform kit as there's many reasons to do so, I'm just arguing that it's not ideal for the user the majority of the time. As far as whether platforms have not-good UX, I mostly disagree. I'd need to see examples of what you're talking about. If by swipe scroll you mean momentum scrolling I disagree. That has great utility on small screens to traverse large lists and it grounds the device in physical metaphors. It's a fantastic UX innovation.