6 ms·

It is clear that gov.uk hires _actual_ UX designers, people who focus on user experience. Not what most of us in the industry see, where they prioritise flashy

It is clear that gov.uk hires _actual_ UX designers, people who focus on user experience. Not what most of us in the industry see, where they prioritise flashy animations with easing over stuff like this. Nice one

wutwutwutwut 5y ago
Yet the linked text shows as black on darkish gray background to me, making it very hard for me to read.
- laputan_machine 5y ago
  it's almost black (#0b0c0c) on almost white (#f3f2f1), you can this by inspecting the CSS
- wongarsu 5y ago
  For me it's black text on white background, in one narrow easy to read column of text.
- emerongi 5y ago
  It is because of the cookie banner. It makes the rest of the page grayer to highlight the banner. Once you close it, it is black on light-gray, which is actually the most palatable combination for me (reasonable contrast between text and background). Yet another reason why cookie banners suck. I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually.
  - chronogram 5y ago
    > Yet another reason why cookie banners suck. More like yet another reason why that government wanting to track its citizens via Google analytics sucks.
    - smcl 5y ago
      I get you and mostly agree, but using GA on its gov.uk websites is probably the least intrusive surveillance the UK does. GCHQ were pretty heavily involved in those Snowden leaks, and I don’t imagine they’ve backed off at all since then.
  - wutwutwutwut 5y ago
    > I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually. So a cookie banner which makes the entire page unreadable without showing, you know, a cookie banner is less sucky than others? I had no idea there was a cookie banner. Was the unreadable text supposed to give it away? Most cookie banners show some text which lets me approve or reject cookies.
astura 5y ago
I watched my husband trying to do something important on AmericanExpress.com and he got totally stuck and extremely frustrated because he thought all the radio buttons were disabled and he couldn't answer the questions he was being asked. Some shitty UI designer thought grey radio buttons "looked good" ignoring that grey controls have a functional meaning (disabled). Sure the grey was a slightly different shade than the "disabled grey", but my husband doesn't know what the exact shade of grey disabled is because he doesn't use a computer all day. He just knows when controls are grey he can't use them, and that's totally reasonable. Companies make no sense, they tell you to use their website so you don't have to call their call center but then they don't prioritize usability and accessibility on their shitty SPA.
- philwelch 5y ago
  I'm going to take this as further evidence for my crackpot theory that it should have never been possible for websites to define their own styling. Websites should serve semantic content and the browser should enable the user to apply their own preferred styling.
  - bspammer 5y ago
    I think it would be a shame for every website to look the same. Not all information is textual - we’re visual creatures and a lot of meaning can be conveyed through color, layout, font choices etc.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      That's what PDF is for ;) But yes, that's an obvious objection and if I had good responses to all the obvious objections, I would have something more than a crackpot theory. At the same time, I think the web as it is now is the worst possible state of affairs. There's no clear distinction between content and UI. You can theoretically use predefined UI elements, but nobody ever does and if they do, they can (and almost always do) completely change their behavior.
- david422 5y ago
vanderZwan 5y ago
Funny you mention that, because out of curiosity I clicked "Categories" -> "Communities" to see what else they have on their blog, and the first thing it showed was a post from June stating that they were hiring: https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/24/were-hiring-interaction-and-service-designers/ https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/24/were-hiring-inter... I'm sure the positions are filled now, but it also goes into what they are looking for in interaction and service designers.
- toyg 5y ago
  AFAIK they are always hiring, more or less. I expect pay rates will be toward the low end of the scale, particularly for London.
  - vanderZwan 5y ago
    If the British government is comparable to the Dutch one then the main appeal of working for them would be getting a work contract that provides very good job security compared to many other jobs.
    - toyg 5y ago
      To be fair, you also get to make a very clear difference in the everyday life of millions, solving actual problems for real people - instead of finding new ways to display despicable ads.
xenocyon 5y ago
IMHO, the bad nature of much of the UX we see around us is in the gray area between incompetence and malice. It's hard to sincerely concern oneself with usability when the main objective is to manufacture consent, manipulate the user into doing something you want, and use novelty or gamification to engage or convert. The poor design, flashy animations and other such cruft are a byproduct of this mentality - they may not always be inherently malicious in themselves but they are the result of a mindset which doesn't truly prioritize the user's interests.
- thrashh 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s malice at all. I use many products where I think “wow, this doesn’t make sense. do the people who make this use their own product?” Then I people watch at work (in every department of course) and I see them do routine things that they seem to hate doing everyday and I think “wow, I would try to do it this other way but ok” Then on meetings on my team, someone will suggest something that checks all the requirements, but I would have to speak up and roleplay as our support personnel after this feature is released I have come to the conclusion that people are much harder workers than me.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  In my company, it's not malice, it's stupidity and a lack of leadership. Some of the middle managers I deal with regularly lament that our web sites don't look like "real" web sites, because they aren't flashy enough. When I ask them what web sites they consider "real," they say things like "YouTube," or "MTV." Sometimes name their favorite video game, or streaming show. Fortunately, I'm able to push back on these requests successfully (so far). But sometimes I have to play the "We're a healthcare company, not a toy company" card. Sometimes that doesn't work, and I have to go over people's heads. More and more, the people in charge don't know the difference between a web site, an app, a video game, or one of those TV police dramas where someone shouts "Enhance!" and a crime is solved.
- dkarl 5y ago
  > gray area between incompetence and malice Meaning there's enough incompetence going around to provide plausible deniability for routine malice.

wutwutwutwut 5y ago

Yet the linked text shows as black on darkish gray background to me, making it very hard for me to read.

laputan_machine 5y ago
it's almost black (#0b0c0c) on almost white (#f3f2f1), you can this by inspecting the CSS
wongarsu 5y ago
For me it's black text on white background, in one narrow easy to read column of text.
emerongi 5y ago
It is because of the cookie banner. It makes the rest of the page grayer to highlight the banner. Once you close it, it is black on light-gray, which is actually the most palatable combination for me (reasonable contrast between text and background). Yet another reason why cookie banners suck. I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually.
- chronogram 5y ago
  > Yet another reason why cookie banners suck. More like yet another reason why that government wanting to track its citizens via Google analytics sucks.
  - smcl 5y ago
    I get you and mostly agree, but using GA on its gov.uk websites is probably the least intrusive surveillance the UK does. GCHQ were pretty heavily involved in those Snowden leaks, and I don’t imagine they’ve backed off at all since then.
- wutwutwutwut 5y ago
  > I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually. So a cookie banner which makes the entire page unreadable without showing, you know, a cookie banner is less sucky than others? I had no idea there was a cookie banner. Was the unreadable text supposed to give it away? Most cookie banners show some text which lets me approve or reject cookies.

astura 5y ago

I watched my husband trying to do something important on AmericanExpress.com and he got totally stuck and extremely frustrated because he thought all the radio buttons were disabled and he couldn't answer the questions he was being asked. Some shitty UI designer thought grey radio buttons "looked good" ignoring that grey controls have a functional meaning (disabled). Sure the grey was a slightly different shade than the "disabled grey", but my husband doesn't know what the exact shade of grey disabled is because he doesn't use a computer all day. He just knows when controls are grey he can't use them, and that's totally reasonable. Companies make no sense, they tell you to use their website so you don't have to call their call center but then they don't prioritize usability and accessibility on their shitty SPA.

philwelch 5y ago
I'm going to take this as further evidence for my crackpot theory that it should have never been possible for websites to define their own styling. Websites should serve semantic content and the browser should enable the user to apply their own preferred styling.
- bspammer 5y ago
  I think it would be a shame for every website to look the same. Not all information is textual - we’re visual creatures and a lot of meaning can be conveyed through color, layout, font choices etc.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    That's what PDF is for ;) But yes, that's an obvious objection and if I had good responses to all the obvious objections, I would have something more than a crackpot theory. At the same time, I think the web as it is now is the worst possible state of affairs. There's no clear distinction between content and UI. You can theoretically use predefined UI elements, but nobody ever does and if they do, they can (and almost always do) completely change their behavior.
david422 5y ago

vanderZwan 5y ago

Funny you mention that, because out of curiosity I clicked "Categories" -> "Communities" to see what else they have on their blog, and the first thing it showed was a post from June stating that they were hiring: https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/24/were-hiring-interaction-and-service-designers/ https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/24/were-hiring-inter... I'm sure the positions are filled now, but it also goes into what they are looking for in interaction and service designers.

toyg 5y ago
AFAIK they are always hiring, more or less. I expect pay rates will be toward the low end of the scale, particularly for London.
- vanderZwan 5y ago
  If the British government is comparable to the Dutch one then the main appeal of working for them would be getting a work contract that provides very good job security compared to many other jobs.
  - toyg 5y ago
    To be fair, you also get to make a very clear difference in the everyday life of millions, solving actual problems for real people - instead of finding new ways to display despicable ads.

xenocyon 5y ago

IMHO, the bad nature of much of the UX we see around us is in the gray area between incompetence and malice. It's hard to sincerely concern oneself with usability when the main objective is to manufacture consent, manipulate the user into doing something you want, and use novelty or gamification to engage or convert. The poor design, flashy animations and other such cruft are a byproduct of this mentality - they may not always be inherently malicious in themselves but they are the result of a mindset which doesn't truly prioritize the user's interests.

thrashh 5y ago
I don’t think it’s malice at all. I use many products where I think “wow, this doesn’t make sense. do the people who make this use their own product?” Then I people watch at work (in every department of course) and I see them do routine things that they seem to hate doing everyday and I think “wow, I would try to do it this other way but ok” Then on meetings on my team, someone will suggest something that checks all the requirements, but I would have to speak up and roleplay as our support personnel after this feature is released I have come to the conclusion that people are much harder workers than me.
reaperducer 5y ago
In my company, it's not malice, it's stupidity and a lack of leadership. Some of the middle managers I deal with regularly lament that our web sites don't look like "real" web sites, because they aren't flashy enough. When I ask them what web sites they consider "real," they say things like "YouTube," or "MTV." Sometimes name their favorite video game, or streaming show. Fortunately, I'm able to push back on these requests successfully (so far). But sometimes I have to play the "We're a healthcare company, not a toy company" card. Sometimes that doesn't work, and I have to go over people's heads. More and more, the people in charge don't know the difference between a web site, an app, a video game, or one of those TV police dramas where someone shouts "Enhance!" and a crime is solved.
dkarl 5y ago
> gray area between incompetence and malice Meaning there's enough incompetence going around to provide plausible deniability for routine malice.