4 ms·

Would be cool. But really, I don't think people will double-guess themselves when QuizMatic3000 doesn't give reasons for it. (An age-old UX myth: users never re

Would be cool. But really, I don't think people will double-guess themselves when QuizMatic3000 doesn't give reasons for it. (An age-old UX myth: users never read dialog boxes, they just click OK.)

jacquesm 16y ago
One fearless developer I worked with would switch the meaning of the boxes every now and then to 'train' the users not to ignore the texts based on negative feedback. +------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Are you really sure you don't want to format ? | | | | <yes> <no> | | | +------------------------------------------------------+ He'd have made a pretty good BOFH I think.
- kennethn 16y ago
  That's like "training" a cyclist to use a helmet by smacking them in the head.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Plenty of times later in life when I saw some cryptic message in a dialog box I suspected that he'd found new employment, but based on the high frequency of such instances it's hard to believe they're all related to him ;)
  - nowarninglabel 16y ago
    I think we should do some A/B testing on this for efficacy.
- deno 16y ago
  Or you could use meaningful button labels: <format> <cancel> (or something like that) It's both intuitive and simple. Universally every HIG[1] that exists advocates that. Personally, I'd make the button red as well. [1] Human Interface Guidelines. For example, here's relevant section in KDE's HIG: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Usability/HIG/Messages#Confirmation_Button_Labels http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Usability/HIG/Messages#Conf... EDIT: To clarify I didn't suspected this to be a revelation to anyone. I just wanted to put it here, since it's a very relevant audience and I was just surprised nobody have mentioned it already.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Yes, that's the only right way to do it. But unfortunately even the largest companies still get this sort of thing wrong with alarming regularity. Another pet peeve of mine is error messages that list multiple possible causes when clearly the underlying software must know exactly which one was the 'real' cause. So then you have to go and investigate a bunch of stuff just on the off chance that that was what caused the issue.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  I think IE8 did something like this, w.r.t content not served over https during an https session. It was a yes/no box worded like "Do you want to view the content only served over https?" assuming the users would generally click "yes" thinking it was the more permissive option.
- compay 16y ago
  > He'd have made a pretty good BOFH Or punching bag.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Hence the 'fearless'.

Would be cool. But really, I don't think people will double-guess themselves when QuizMatic3000 doesn't give reasons for it. (An age-old UX myth: users never read dialog boxes, they just click OK.)

jacquesm 16y ago

One fearless developer I worked with would switch the meaning of the boxes every now and then to 'train' the users not to ignore the texts based on negative feedback. +------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Are you really sure you don't want to format ? | | | | <yes> <no> | | | +------------------------------------------------------+ He'd have made a pretty good BOFH I think.

kennethn 16y ago
That's like "training" a cyclist to use a helmet by smacking them in the head.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Plenty of times later in life when I saw some cryptic message in a dialog box I suspected that he'd found new employment, but based on the high frequency of such instances it's hard to believe they're all related to him ;)
- nowarninglabel 16y ago
  I think we should do some A/B testing on this for efficacy.
deno 16y ago
Or you could use meaningful button labels: <format> <cancel> (or something like that) It's both intuitive and simple. Universally every HIG[1] that exists advocates that. Personally, I'd make the button red as well. [1] Human Interface Guidelines. For example, here's relevant section in KDE's HIG: http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Usability/HIG/Messages#Confirmation_Button_Labels http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/Usability/HIG/Messages#Conf... EDIT: To clarify I didn't suspected this to be a revelation to anyone. I just wanted to put it here, since it's a very relevant audience and I was just surprised nobody have mentioned it already.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Yes, that's the only right way to do it. But unfortunately even the largest companies still get this sort of thing wrong with alarming regularity. Another pet peeve of mine is error messages that list multiple possible causes when clearly the underlying software must know exactly which one was the 'real' cause. So then you have to go and investigate a bunch of stuff just on the off chance that that was what caused the issue.
jordan0day 16y ago
I think IE8 did something like this, w.r.t content not served over https during an https session. It was a yes/no box worded like "Do you want to view the content only served over https?" assuming the users would generally click "yes" thinking it was the more permissive option.
compay 16y ago
> He'd have made a pretty good BOFH Or punching bag.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Hence the 'fearless'.