43 ms·

It's not very clear to me it's clickable.. Is it an action, or a link to a different page/view? If it's an action (accept/decline invite), make it a button.

It's not very clear to me it's clickable.. Is it an action, or a link to a different page/view? If it's an action (accept/decline invite), make it a button. If it's navigation, make it a text link. You are giving totally disparate cues to the user when the actions taken upon clicking are of the exact same type. My initial reaction to a piece of text directly next to a button is "why is there random unrelated text there?" and then the sensation of anger as I come to the realization someone consciously decided to make me think about the UI more than I needed to. It's purely a distraction. Just make it look like a button. There is literally zero reason not to, and you can eliminate the chance of confusion. Why increase the possibility of uncertainty at all? What value does that provide to anyone? Every UI or design element that causes me to think about it wastes precious moments I could have been thinking about something I actually cared about, for example the actual task I was in the middle of. On top of that, when you use unconventional design, even after someone learns the seemingly-arbitrary, specific quirks of the design you've used, you will cause them to think about it all again later when you redesign the application.

gsinclair 5y ago
Literally zero reason not to? I think it’s emphasising the “default” action quite nicely, and de-emphasising the other action quite appropriately. “Decline invitation” needs to be something you can do, of course, but it will be used < 1% of the time, I imagine. I find that having buttons side by side forces me to think in a mildly unpleasant way, like I have to read two thinks more carefully because there is more onus on me to decide which is the typical action.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > I think it’s emphasising the “default” action quite nicely, and de-emphasising the other action quite appropriately. What's the reason that the designer wants to nudge me to accept invitations again? I missed it. Also, what's the difference between that and a dark pattern?
- amatecha 5y ago
  No, that's still not a reason to conceal the behaviour/purpose of the UI element. If you want to emphasize/de-emphasize a UI element, you can do something like was established on most GUIs 30+ years ago: make the default/safest option have a thicker border, and the secondary/de-emphasized option have a thin border. Early examples (1985 and 1991 respectively): https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/win101.png https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/wi... https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/features/search/macos70.png https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/features/search... Note how immediately-obvious it is which action is the "typical". You don't even have to read the text, you could even squint your eyes or glance from a great distance and still understand which button is the one you probably want. UI design involves trust, especially for software where people are trying to actually get something done. Making unconventional designs erodes your users' trust. Have respect for them and what you can reasonably expect them to "know" arriving at your software, and they will have an easier time and love you for it. As we can see, these conventions have existed for decades, and deviating from them warrants a very compelling reason, not just "cuz it looks neat".
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The button to decline doesn't add an entity. There are already two options to consider whether to accept or decline. Making the external state and internal state match avoids confusion.

gsinclair 5y ago

Literally zero reason not to? I think it’s emphasising the “default” action quite nicely, and de-emphasising the other action quite appropriately. “Decline invitation” needs to be something you can do, of course, but it will be used < 1% of the time, I imagine. I find that having buttons side by side forces me to think in a mildly unpleasant way, like I have to read two thinks more carefully because there is more onus on me to decide which is the typical action.

pessimizer 5y ago
> I think it’s emphasising the “default” action quite nicely, and de-emphasising the other action quite appropriately. What's the reason that the designer wants to nudge me to accept invitations again? I missed it. Also, what's the difference between that and a dark pattern?
amatecha 5y ago
No, that's still not a reason to conceal the behaviour/purpose of the UI element. If you want to emphasize/de-emphasize a UI element, you can do something like was established on most GUIs 30+ years ago: make the default/safest option have a thicker border, and the secondary/de-emphasized option have a thin border. Early examples (1985 and 1991 respectively): https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/win101.png https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/appearance/wi... https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/features/search/macos70.png https://guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/features/search... Note how immediately-obvious it is which action is the "typical". You don't even have to read the text, you could even squint your eyes or glance from a great distance and still understand which button is the one you probably want. UI design involves trust, especially for software where people are trying to actually get something done. Making unconventional designs erodes your users' trust. Have respect for them and what you can reasonably expect them to "know" arriving at your software, and they will have an easier time and love you for it. As we can see, these conventions have existed for decades, and deviating from them warrants a very compelling reason, not just "cuz it looks neat".
michaelmrose 5y ago
The button to decline doesn't add an entity. There are already two options to consider whether to accept or decline. Making the external state and internal state match avoids confusion.