5 ms·

> Just because most users don't use a thing doesn't mean it's not a useful thing to have. Even if almost never called the emergency services doesn't mean I don'

> Just because most users don't use a thing doesn't mean it's not a useful thing to have. Even if almost never called the emergency services doesn't mean I don't want or need the ability to do so. Further, being able to adjust the cursor speed is great for improving accessibility. I never said to remove settings entirely, merely to choose sensible defaults. > What about what the users want to do? What entitles you to decide what is good for other people? That's just creepy as fuck. This is a strange comment. It's literally the job of the designer to make sure users can do what they need to do in the application, I'm not sure how that's "creepy as fuck." But also, there's a notion of libertarian paternalism [0], ie give people choices but also have defaults that are defaulted to the better, healthier, more beneficial option so to speak, because the designer would know that most people may not change their settings. You wouldn't want your pointer speed to be excessively fast, that would just be annoying, so set the default at a reasonable level and let people change it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)#Libertarian_paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)#Libertarian_pater... > Sunstein and Thaler state that "the libertarian aspect of our strategies lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general, people should be free to do what they like-and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so".[18] The paternalistic portion of the term "lies in the claim that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better".

marginalia_nu 5y ago
> If you have sensible defaults, you can make users do actions that you want them to do > It's literally the job of the designer to make sure users can do what they need to do in the application, See, this is two entirely different things. The notion of attempting to manipulate the behavior of people without their knowledge or consent is creepy no matter how you twist or turn it.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  Design is manipulating people into doing what you want, I don't see how you can get away from that. A designer must make choices on what they want to user to see and do, that's what a default is. Perhaps you're thinking of stuff like r/assholedesign?
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Must it be about manipulating people? Can't it be about bringing utility?
    - ovao 5y ago
      At a high level, there’s good utility in guiding users down the path of a curated experience when the designers know the weak points of the app, or where some given tool has much more general utility than another (in which case they might hide the other tool under a context menu or something). It’s not necessarily the case that designers guide users down paths that solely benefit the designer, and I think that approach tends to be seen by most as “bad design”. In fact, it might even be bad design by definition.
    - Erdromian 5y ago
      You can frame it any way you want, but you are manipulating them TO bring utility. You are making a choice, on their behalf, that influences how they experience something without their knowledge or explicit consent. Just because you might intend them only the best, doesn't change that it is a form of unseen manipulation.
    - cercatrova 5y ago
      What you describe as utility is manipulating people, in a sense. You won't design a push door with handles implying it be pulled instead, so in a way, you're manipulating a user's action to push the door. I think you're assuming that manipulating people is used pejoratively, when I'm using it to mean "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner," rather than "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."
    - Bjartr 5y ago
      When someone sits down to use an app, the app will have higher utility if it makes whatever task they're aiming to do, easier to do. When designing an app's UI, making something easy for users is a matter of understanding what their expectations are and matching what they look for by default when they try to do a thing in your app with what you show them in the UI. That the thing they look for is the thing you show them is both the manipulation and the thing that raises the utility.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

> If you have sensible defaults, you can make users do actions that you want them to do > It's literally the job of the designer to make sure users can do what they need to do in the application, See, this is two entirely different things. The notion of attempting to manipulate the behavior of people without their knowledge or consent is creepy no matter how you twist or turn it.

cercatrova 5y ago
Design is manipulating people into doing what you want, I don't see how you can get away from that. A designer must make choices on what they want to user to see and do, that's what a default is. Perhaps you're thinking of stuff like r/assholedesign?
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Must it be about manipulating people? Can't it be about bringing utility?
  - ovao 5y ago
    At a high level, there’s good utility in guiding users down the path of a curated experience when the designers know the weak points of the app, or where some given tool has much more general utility than another (in which case they might hide the other tool under a context menu or something). It’s not necessarily the case that designers guide users down paths that solely benefit the designer, and I think that approach tends to be seen by most as “bad design”. In fact, it might even be bad design by definition.
  - Erdromian 5y ago
    You can frame it any way you want, but you are manipulating them TO bring utility. You are making a choice, on their behalf, that influences how they experience something without their knowledge or explicit consent. Just because you might intend them only the best, doesn't change that it is a form of unseen manipulation.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    What you describe as utility is manipulating people, in a sense. You won't design a push door with handles implying it be pulled instead, so in a way, you're manipulating a user's action to push the door. I think you're assuming that manipulating people is used pejoratively, when I'm using it to mean "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner," rather than "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."
  - Bjartr 5y ago
    When someone sits down to use an app, the app will have higher utility if it makes whatever task they're aiming to do, easier to do. When designing an app's UI, making something easy for users is a matter of understanding what their expectations are and matching what they look for by default when they try to do a thing in your app with what you show them in the UI. That the thing they look for is the thing you show them is both the manipulation and the thing that raises the utility.