3 ms·

And yet: https://web.archive.org/web/20190913224546/https:/twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/1172610099136716800 https://web.archive.org/web/20190913224546/https

And yet: https://web.archive.org/web/20190913224546/https:/twitter.com/garybernhardt/status/1172610099136716800 https://web.archive.org/web/20190913224546/https:/twitter.co... (I'm unsure why Gary removed these tweets, maybe something did change his mind on this.)

chrismorgan 6y ago
I can guess why he removed them: it’s a really bad example in support of carousels. The carousel on that page is one of the very few clickable things, and literally the only thing on the entire page that doesn’t either take you to obviously-unrelated content (by which I mean a different site, or the blog or privacy links in the footer), or start the program (log in, sign up, get started, start now)—that is, if you want to know more about what this thing actually is, the carousel is your only hope, if you don’t want to sign up or start the program yet, and I expect that to be true for most visitors. The measurement is made even more bad by the fact that the carousel inherently encourages a large number of clicks: there are three slides, but because there’s no indication of that (no progress indicator, and no transitions) I honestly expect the typical person that interacts with that carousel to click the arrow at least eight times: maybe once and a half through, then “wait, was that it? Did I waste my interaction time on that?” and a bit more fiddling to confirm that yes, that actually is all that’s there. So in that heat map, divide the carousel arrow clicks by at least eight to get a more realistic picture of things. (The heat map reveals other problems with the site, too, things that look like they might be links and people click on them, but they’re not.) The carousel on that page is terrible and should be abolished with prejudice. Just flatten the slides, lay them out vertically! It’d be substantially superior, make the concept much easier to grasp.

chrismorgan 6y ago

I can guess why he removed them: it’s a really bad example in support of carousels. The carousel on that page is one of the very few clickable things, and literally the only thing on the entire page that doesn’t either take you to obviously-unrelated content (by which I mean a different site, or the blog or privacy links in the footer), or start the program (log in, sign up, get started, start now)—that is, if you want to know more about what this thing actually is, the carousel is your only hope, if you don’t want to sign up or start the program yet, and I expect that to be true for most visitors. The measurement is made even more bad by the fact that the carousel inherently encourages a large number of clicks: there are three slides, but because there’s no indication of that (no progress indicator, and no transitions) I honestly expect the typical person that interacts with that carousel to click the arrow at least eight times: maybe once and a half through, then “wait, was that it? Did I waste my interaction time on that?” and a bit more fiddling to confirm that yes, that actually is all that’s there. So in that heat map, divide the carousel arrow clicks by at least eight to get a more realistic picture of things. (The heat map reveals other problems with the site, too, things that look like they might be links and people click on them, but they’re not.) The carousel on that page is terrible and should be abolished with prejudice. Just flatten the slides, lay them out vertically! It’d be substantially superior, make the concept much easier to grasp.