4 ms·

Nielsen etc advocate boring, predicrable designs. A number of others seem to have mistaken simple and boring for dumb and useless. What happened to the famili

Nielsen etc advocate boring, predicrable designs. A number of others seem to have mistaken simple and boring for dumb and useless. What happened to the familiar menu? UX Designers decided it wasn't simple enough and replaced it with hamburger menus and ribbons because "dumb users". I'm not saying you are one of these UX designers, but lets not pretend they aren't there cause they run the shop at most places it seems, including a number of places in FAANG land.

hopler 8y ago
Try running Netscape on a 4" screen
- nitrogen 8y ago
  640x480 is tiny compared to a modern phone...
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    Still, there is a point: even if we could easily see the design elements from Netscape 4 on a modern smartphone they'd be hard to hit consistently. So that is not what I argue above. In my post above I argue against the dumbification of desktop apps and websites. Things that were working until UX designers came up with the idea that people are to dumb.
    - FactolSarin 8y ago
      But people are dumb.
  - myguysi 8y ago
    Nope, an iPhone 8 is 375x667 Edit: for those questioning my reply, I’m talking about the logical resolution (what you actually use for layout) not the physical pixel resolution
    - loeg 8y ago
      How did you come up with that? iphone 8 is 1334x750.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        It looks like the parent commenter is talking in points (iPhone 8 is a 2x Retina Display), while you're speaking about pixels.
        myguysi 8y ago
        Yep!
        loeg 8y ago
        Ok; the classic 640x480 figure is also in pixels, so I'm not sure why the parent commenter would use a different unit to try and draw a comparison.
        Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
        There must be a pixel-per-inch ratio in this equation. A 14" monitor running at 640x480 will have around 57 ppi, while iPhone X has like 462 ppi.
        myguysi 8y ago
        We’re taking about rendering UI... If I render a div with width=375px and height=667px it will fill the screen on an iPhone 8 because it renders @2x.
    - gbear605 8y ago
      Not according to Apple. They say it is “1334-by-750-pixel resolution at 326 ppi“[0] https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/
      - extra88 8y ago
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    A 14" CRT monitor from The Olden Days has an area of about 523 cm². An iPhone X has a screen area of about 127 cm². A 5.8" screen is tiny, regardless of its resolution. Resolution will only get you so far; people don't have infinitely acute eyesight and infinitely precise dexterity. Most people can't reliably hit a touch target of less than ~10mm in any dimension, which equates to ~180 real pixels on an iPhone X.
    - loeg 8y ago
      > A 14" CRT monitor from The Olden Days has an area of about 523 cm². An iPhone X has a screen area of about 127 cm². A 5.8" screen is tiny, regardless of its resolution. People hold phones much closer than you would sit from an Olden Days CRT, too. It's not just raw area that matters, but something like degrees, as observed by your eye.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  This does not explain why there are still hamburger menus on 20" screens.

hopler 8y ago

Try running Netscape on a 4" screen

nitrogen 8y ago
640x480 is tiny compared to a modern phone...
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Still, there is a point: even if we could easily see the design elements from Netscape 4 on a modern smartphone they'd be hard to hit consistently. So that is not what I argue above. In my post above I argue against the dumbification of desktop apps and websites. Things that were working until UX designers came up with the idea that people are to dumb.
  - FactolSarin 8y ago
    But people are dumb.
- myguysi 8y ago
  Nope, an iPhone 8 is 375x667 Edit: for those questioning my reply, I’m talking about the logical resolution (what you actually use for layout) not the physical pixel resolution
  - loeg 8y ago
    How did you come up with that? iphone 8 is 1334x750.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      It looks like the parent commenter is talking in points (iPhone 8 is a 2x Retina Display), while you're speaking about pixels.
      - myguysi 8y ago
        Yep!
      - loeg 8y ago
        Ok; the classic 640x480 figure is also in pixels, so I'm not sure why the parent commenter would use a different unit to try and draw a comparison.
        Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
        There must be a pixel-per-inch ratio in this equation. A 14" monitor running at 640x480 will have around 57 ppi, while iPhone X has like 462 ppi.
        myguysi 8y ago
        We’re taking about rendering UI... If I render a div with width=375px and height=667px it will fill the screen on an iPhone 8 because it renders @2x.
  - gbear605 8y ago
    Not according to Apple. They say it is “1334-by-750-pixel resolution at 326 ppi“[0] https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/
    - extra88 8y ago
- jdietrich 8y ago
  A 14" CRT monitor from The Olden Days has an area of about 523 cm². An iPhone X has a screen area of about 127 cm². A 5.8" screen is tiny, regardless of its resolution. Resolution will only get you so far; people don't have infinitely acute eyesight and infinitely precise dexterity. Most people can't reliably hit a touch target of less than ~10mm in any dimension, which equates to ~180 real pixels on an iPhone X.
  - loeg 8y ago
    > A 14" CRT monitor from The Olden Days has an area of about 523 cm². An iPhone X has a screen area of about 127 cm². A 5.8" screen is tiny, regardless of its resolution. People hold phones much closer than you would sit from an Olden Days CRT, too. It's not just raw area that matters, but something like degrees, as observed by your eye.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
This does not explain why there are still hamburger menus on 20" screens.