5 ms·

The real hacker news-ish comments are the ones like yours posting cheap "gotchas" and pointing out hypocrisies where there are none every time someone says some

The real hacker news-ish comments are the ones like yours posting cheap "gotchas" and pointing out hypocrisies where there are none every time someone says something similiar. An engineer sees structural problems with buildings and bridges where people who use them everyday don't. An english major can see a problem with the language used in a newspaper where thousands of other readers don't. There is nothing unusual about this.

least 5y ago
Are programmers really UI/UX experts, though? If you said a programmer pointing out how stupid programming is shown in film you might have a point but I really don't think many of these people pointing out their perceived flaws in UI/UX are experts. In any thread that mentions UI/UX something like this always comes up where someone is bemoaning current UI/UX and hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing. That isn't to say that laymen can't make arguments with regards to poor UX/UI because it's ultimately a subjective experience and what is intuitive to one person isn't necessarily going to be the same for another. I just think you're conferring expertise to undeserving recipients.
- Const-me 5y ago
  > something like this always comes up Unsurprisingly. > which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing On my first job I've used Windows NT 4. Yet I agree with GP Windows 7 was the peak UX.
  - least 5y ago
    The comment about it coinciding when they started was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but surprisingly often holds true. My comment more broadly is just pointing out that most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective.
    - Const-me 5y ago
      > most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective On subjects like that, I don't believe objective arguments are even possible. UX is similar to art or politics, it's inherently subjective because it's about people and culture. Ask a caveman to compare UX of Windows 7 and 10, and they gonna tell both are equally useless. Despite no objective arguments is possible, it might exist a consensus.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  > hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing Nah. I started out with Workbench 1.3, which was flat. Because they literally hadn't the colors available to do more. I didn't use them, but Mac and Atari ST were the same. Then came Workbench 2.0, then MUI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface ), and I recognized and enjoyed the improvements. I love change, I just don't love regression. Why would I? And as for experts: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-cause-uncertainty/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-caus... https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/
  - least 5y ago
    Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad, which includes the shift from skeuomorphism over to flat design. The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm. Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change, so those who fully embraced a particular UX paradigm will find it harder and harder to adapt to shifts in UX unless it cycles back to what they're comfortable with (just like fashion). To quote Abe Simpson, > "I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!"
    - howaboutnope 5y ago
      > but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad We're not looking at a box with unknown contents that we would need to go by probabilities. We can just look at the thing. > The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm. I can, right now in Win 10, show you plenty examples where there is no contrast and no distinction between an overlay window and what's behind it. Not low contrast, exactly the same color. > Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false. I might as well say "as people age and grow in confidence and experience, they trust their own judgement more, and care less about just going along with whatever is pushed just to fit in" or anything like that.
- kyleee 5y ago
  It's the current crop of supposed UI/UX experts though that have foisted this mess of material design, hidden menus, disappearing scroll bars, text fields that don't behave like text fields (ex. browser URL bar) etc. So yes, I do believe many programmers who have to suffer years and decades of UI/UX "advancement" (much of what is actually just design churn) and use computing environments extensively, can definitely have a lot of good input.
  - least 5y ago
    They are called "user" interface and "user" experience, after all. Any "user" can call it bad and it can be a valid point. It can also definitely be valuable input. But an engineer identifying a design flaw in a bridge or an English major identifying errors in language use are people that have specifically studied those things and have a depth and breadth of knowledge that most "users" don't. Programmers aren't UI/UX experts just because they use applications.
arendtio 5y ago
At least we can agree, that it is a typical hacker new-ish discussion ;-)

least 5y ago

Are programmers really UI/UX experts, though? If you said a programmer pointing out how stupid programming is shown in film you might have a point but I really don't think many of these people pointing out their perceived flaws in UI/UX are experts. In any thread that mentions UI/UX something like this always comes up where someone is bemoaning current UI/UX and hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing. That isn't to say that laymen can't make arguments with regards to poor UX/UI because it's ultimately a subjective experience and what is intuitive to one person isn't necessarily going to be the same for another. I just think you're conferring expertise to undeserving recipients.

Const-me 5y ago
> something like this always comes up Unsurprisingly. > which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing On my first job I've used Windows NT 4. Yet I agree with GP Windows 7 was the peak UX.
- least 5y ago
  The comment about it coinciding when they started was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but surprisingly often holds true. My comment more broadly is just pointing out that most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective.
  - Const-me 5y ago
    > most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective On subjects like that, I don't believe objective arguments are even possible. UX is similar to art or politics, it's inherently subjective because it's about people and culture. Ask a caveman to compare UX of Windows 7 and 10, and they gonna tell both are equally useless. Despite no objective arguments is possible, it might exist a consensus.
howaboutnope 5y ago
> hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing Nah. I started out with Workbench 1.3, which was flat. Because they literally hadn't the colors available to do more. I didn't use them, but Mac and Atari ST were the same. Then came Workbench 2.0, then MUI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface ), and I recognized and enjoyed the improvements. I love change, I just don't love regression. Why would I? And as for experts: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-cause-uncertainty/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-caus... https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/
- least 5y ago
  Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad, which includes the shift from skeuomorphism over to flat design. The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm. Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change, so those who fully embraced a particular UX paradigm will find it harder and harder to adapt to shifts in UX unless it cycles back to what they're comfortable with (just like fashion). To quote Abe Simpson, > "I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!"
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    > but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad We're not looking at a box with unknown contents that we would need to go by probabilities. We can just look at the thing. > The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm. I can, right now in Win 10, show you plenty examples where there is no contrast and no distinction between an overlay window and what's behind it. Not low contrast, exactly the same color. > Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false. I might as well say "as people age and grow in confidence and experience, they trust their own judgement more, and care less about just going along with whatever is pushed just to fit in" or anything like that.
kyleee 5y ago
It's the current crop of supposed UI/UX experts though that have foisted this mess of material design, hidden menus, disappearing scroll bars, text fields that don't behave like text fields (ex. browser URL bar) etc. So yes, I do believe many programmers who have to suffer years and decades of UI/UX "advancement" (much of what is actually just design churn) and use computing environments extensively, can definitely have a lot of good input.
- least 5y ago
  They are called "user" interface and "user" experience, after all. Any "user" can call it bad and it can be a valid point. It can also definitely be valuable input. But an engineer identifying a design flaw in a bridge or an English major identifying errors in language use are people that have specifically studied those things and have a depth and breadth of knowledge that most "users" don't. Programmers aren't UI/UX experts just because they use applications.

arendtio 5y ago

At least we can agree, that it is a typical hacker new-ish discussion ;-)