5 ms·

Force touch is even less discoverable than gestures. If it is used to distinguish between "simple" and "complex" actions in the way right/left click do with a m

Force touch is even less discoverable than gestures. If it is used to distinguish between "simple" and "complex" actions in the way right/left click do with a mouse- as Apple attempted in several places in iOS- it's far easier to activate accidentally than intentionally. Overall the feature was a horrendous usability misstep, and it's not surprising it was quickly nixed.

coldtea 7y ago
Initial discoverability is overrated. Some actions are not discoverable, but are very handy and much faster than anything discoverable could be when we are once shown or taught them. An issue deeper than initial discoverability is "where can I do this", but this could be solved with e.g. a small mark/hue change/etc consistently shown on items that allow for force touch.
- RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
  If it's a supplementary way to access functionality- a shortcut- poor discoverability is acceptable. If it's the only way to access functionality, poor discoverability is bad design, full stop.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Those are not the only 2 cases. 1) supplementary way to access functionality and 2) only way to access functionality there's a 3rd option, which is the case here, for which is acceptable: 3) supplementary way to access _secondary_ functionality Major functionality is still accessed by touch, menus, etc. But even for primary functionality, I'd take fast, convenient, powerful over discoverability, any day of the week. The idea that users should not do any learning, and we should constrain our UI to stuff that's readily and immediately discoverable is incredibly limiting...
    - RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
      There is no such thing as a user interface which is naturally "intuitive". Discoverable user interfaces provide consistency and affordance. If a new operating system or device uses similar affordances to things a user has seen before, they can rapidly transfer their experience. This is usually what people mean when they call a UI "intuitive": conventional. Users always have to learn, and as user interface designers we must give them a path for learning. If there's no path to learning about a feature, it might as well not exist, irrespective of whether you consider it "secondary". Gestures, by design, have no afforances. Pinch-zoom is nearly the only multitouch gesture that has been so universally accepted and applied that it can be taken as given. Pressure-based shortcuts, in the absence of corresponding visual cues (as implemented by Apple), likewise have no affordances. The 3d-touch hardware was great, and worked as intended. iOS used it in an opaque, undiscoverable manner, and the result was a total dud.
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  HN is 50% “vim is amazing I can be so productive now that I learned to use this” and 50% “Steve Jobs never would have allowed a long press action how will anyone ever learn to use it?”

coldtea 7y ago

Initial discoverability is overrated. Some actions are not discoverable, but are very handy and much faster than anything discoverable could be when we are once shown or taught them. An issue deeper than initial discoverability is "where can I do this", but this could be solved with e.g. a small mark/hue change/etc consistently shown on items that allow for force touch.

RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
If it's a supplementary way to access functionality- a shortcut- poor discoverability is acceptable. If it's the only way to access functionality, poor discoverability is bad design, full stop.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Those are not the only 2 cases. 1) supplementary way to access functionality and 2) only way to access functionality there's a 3rd option, which is the case here, for which is acceptable: 3) supplementary way to access _secondary_ functionality Major functionality is still accessed by touch, menus, etc. But even for primary functionality, I'd take fast, convenient, powerful over discoverability, any day of the week. The idea that users should not do any learning, and we should constrain our UI to stuff that's readily and immediately discoverable is incredibly limiting...
  - RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
    There is no such thing as a user interface which is naturally "intuitive". Discoverable user interfaces provide consistency and affordance. If a new operating system or device uses similar affordances to things a user has seen before, they can rapidly transfer their experience. This is usually what people mean when they call a UI "intuitive": conventional. Users always have to learn, and as user interface designers we must give them a path for learning. If there's no path to learning about a feature, it might as well not exist, irrespective of whether you consider it "secondary". Gestures, by design, have no afforances. Pinch-zoom is nearly the only multitouch gesture that has been so universally accepted and applied that it can be taken as given. Pressure-based shortcuts, in the absence of corresponding visual cues (as implemented by Apple), likewise have no affordances. The 3d-touch hardware was great, and worked as intended. iOS used it in an opaque, undiscoverable manner, and the result was a total dud.
wlesieutre 7y ago
HN is 50% “vim is amazing I can be so productive now that I learned to use this” and 50% “Steve Jobs never would have allowed a long press action how will anyone ever learn to use it?”