3 ms·

Sure. Discoverability is great for new users to software. After the initial learning period I care far more about ease of performing repetitive actions. Discove

Sure. Discoverability is great for new users to software. After the initial learning period I care far more about ease of performing repetitive actions. Discoverability is useless to me when I've already established a workflow and just want to perform known actions. I was specifically talking about things they do hundreds of times a day (at least) like dispensing medication, requesting medication, inputting vitals, taking notes, etc. Those things shouldn't require 10-15 clicks and 4 different modals/menus each time. They're extremely common use cases that a nurse will likely be performing a number of times in every single room they enter. And why shouldn't they have an opinion on what is important? They're the ones using the software all day!

Scoundreller 6y ago
> After the initial learning period I care far more about ease of performing repetitive actions. Discoverability is useless to me when I've already established a workflow and just want to perform known actions. I once got in trouble for using autohotkey for something like this. Like, wow were they upset with me.
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  Why were "they" upset? What as the context?
bena 6y ago
In a clinic or hospital setting, there's always going to be someone on an initial learning period. So while discoverability may be "useless" to you, it's not useless to everyone. The issue is also what's important for one use is not important for another. The person dispensing medication may not be the same person taking vitals, etc. And it might be the common use case for that nurse, but another nurse may have a different workflow. What works for cardiovascular doesn't work for ophthalmology. And all these people think they're equally important. They all want the same priority. Not to mention, most people are bad at UX design. So while they should have opinions, they should not be the only consideration.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Isn’t it our job as engineers/UX designers/architects to make it happen? If my software takes 10-15 clicks to do something any of the users does 100s of times a day, I’d consider that a failure on my part.
  - bena 6y ago
    First, counting clicks is a fool's game. 1, 2, 15, 100, the number of clicks doesn't really matter. It's like measuring code quality by line count. It's Spinal Tap. "But it's one less click, innit?" If it takes you 10 seconds to find the one place to click or requires such heavy front-loading that it slows down the system on every click, you've already failed. Doing more of the thing that caused you to fail is a hole with no bottom. Second, the engineers and UX designers aren't the people really driving the design process. That's a problem. The people driving the design process don't know what they're doing. Because everyone things UX design is easy. It's not. It's hard. People think they know what they want, but the don't really. What they know is what they want to do. But they get it wrapped up in their mind that what and how are interchangeable. So "I want to prescribe medicine easy." becomes "Prescriptions need to be one click". Maybe they don't really. Maybe to make them easier to do, they need to be in a context menu or something else. I don't know either. I'm not a UX designer by trade. Because I know it's hard.
    - somehnguy 6y ago
      >It's like measuring code quality by line count. I don't think it is, at all. And counting clicks isn't a fools game - it's a direct metric for how buried simple tasks are. Do you need 15 clicks to restart the process you're debugging? No, it's one click on the debug window. This is no different. >"But it's one less click, innit?" If it takes you 10 seconds to find the one place to click or requires such heavy front-loading that it slows down the system on every click, you've already failed. Doing more of the thing that caused you to fail is a hole with no bottom. Why would it take the nurse 10 seconds to find a button or place to click for an action they've performed thousands of times? We've already established that new nurses have a training program to get familiar with the system. You don't think they are just hired and then thrown into 'go take care of this hallway by yourself' do you? And whats better - front loading so they can select a patient as they enter the room and let it all load up while getting ready to treat (confirm name, start gathering data, etc), or waiting 5 seconds every single time they click anything? Oops, clicked the wrong thing there - thats 10 seconds to let it load, back out, then select the right thing. You can argue discoverability all you want - but go stay a week in a hospital and observe the people actually using the software. Watch how 3/4 of the time they're in your room they're fighting with the computer to perform simple tasks. Tasks they know how to do, but take way too long because of the clutter and poor design of the system. Watch them click 15 times through 4 different windows to dispense a medication - which they'll do 8 times a day just for you. Multiply by that by all the patients they're responsible for. Do you see the problem yet? It feels like I'm saying 'make it easier to use for the people who use it' and you're saying 'no make it shinier so anyone off the street can use it' lol. Maybe we're actually saying similar things - just not aligning thoughts well?

Scoundreller 6y ago

> After the initial learning period I care far more about ease of performing repetitive actions. Discoverability is useless to me when I've already established a workflow and just want to perform known actions. I once got in trouble for using autohotkey for something like this. Like, wow were they upset with me.

wrkronmiller 6y ago
Why were "they" upset? What as the context?

bena 6y ago

In a clinic or hospital setting, there's always going to be someone on an initial learning period. So while discoverability may be "useless" to you, it's not useless to everyone. The issue is also what's important for one use is not important for another. The person dispensing medication may not be the same person taking vitals, etc. And it might be the common use case for that nurse, but another nurse may have a different workflow. What works for cardiovascular doesn't work for ophthalmology. And all these people think they're equally important. They all want the same priority. Not to mention, most people are bad at UX design. So while they should have opinions, they should not be the only consideration.

Aeolun 6y ago
Isn’t it our job as engineers/UX designers/architects to make it happen? If my software takes 10-15 clicks to do something any of the users does 100s of times a day, I’d consider that a failure on my part.
- bena 6y ago
  First, counting clicks is a fool's game. 1, 2, 15, 100, the number of clicks doesn't really matter. It's like measuring code quality by line count. It's Spinal Tap. "But it's one less click, innit?" If it takes you 10 seconds to find the one place to click or requires such heavy front-loading that it slows down the system on every click, you've already failed. Doing more of the thing that caused you to fail is a hole with no bottom. Second, the engineers and UX designers aren't the people really driving the design process. That's a problem. The people driving the design process don't know what they're doing. Because everyone things UX design is easy. It's not. It's hard. People think they know what they want, but the don't really. What they know is what they want to do. But they get it wrapped up in their mind that what and how are interchangeable. So "I want to prescribe medicine easy." becomes "Prescriptions need to be one click". Maybe they don't really. Maybe to make them easier to do, they need to be in a context menu or something else. I don't know either. I'm not a UX designer by trade. Because I know it's hard.
  - somehnguy 6y ago
    >It's like measuring code quality by line count. I don't think it is, at all. And counting clicks isn't a fools game - it's a direct metric for how buried simple tasks are. Do you need 15 clicks to restart the process you're debugging? No, it's one click on the debug window. This is no different. >"But it's one less click, innit?" If it takes you 10 seconds to find the one place to click or requires such heavy front-loading that it slows down the system on every click, you've already failed. Doing more of the thing that caused you to fail is a hole with no bottom. Why would it take the nurse 10 seconds to find a button or place to click for an action they've performed thousands of times? We've already established that new nurses have a training program to get familiar with the system. You don't think they are just hired and then thrown into 'go take care of this hallway by yourself' do you? And whats better - front loading so they can select a patient as they enter the room and let it all load up while getting ready to treat (confirm name, start gathering data, etc), or waiting 5 seconds every single time they click anything? Oops, clicked the wrong thing there - thats 10 seconds to let it load, back out, then select the right thing. You can argue discoverability all you want - but go stay a week in a hospital and observe the people actually using the software. Watch how 3/4 of the time they're in your room they're fighting with the computer to perform simple tasks. Tasks they know how to do, but take way too long because of the clutter and poor design of the system. Watch them click 15 times through 4 different windows to dispense a medication - which they'll do 8 times a day just for you. Multiply by that by all the patients they're responsible for. Do you see the problem yet? It feels like I'm saying 'make it easier to use for the people who use it' and you're saying 'no make it shinier so anyone off the street can use it' lol. Maybe we're actually saying similar things - just not aligning thoughts well?