3 ms·
I was about to make a similar comment. The author even states this at the end "user's prioritize trails close to them, so the best way to show that is with a ma
by Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
I was about to make a similar comment. The author even states this at the end "user's prioritize trails close to them, so the best way to show that is with a map". --- The first UX was NOT the most efficient way to show the information but the second one was. Therefore, users do in fact want the most efficient UX. He was just wrong about what that was.
- JoshTko 4y agoThis, calling the first design the most efficient UX shows how little empathy he has for his users. He built a UX for himself and faulted users for being "inefficient"
- jrochkind1 4y ago+1. "As simple as possible but no simpler" -- the takeaway is that the first UI was in fact "simpler than possible" to accomplish user goals, not that users prefer things to be less simple or less efficient!
- mromanuk 4y agoI’m wondering what will happen if the first UX is ordered by proximity with distance to it and also a way to open it on the map. I think it’s worth trying it. Is a common use case for my searching for gas stations on Google maps
- bombcar 4y agoIt annoys me that Apple Maps enroute will let me "see gas stations" nearby but can't do a simple "find the closest McDonalds to my current route" - I have no desire to turn around and back track even if that's currently the closest one, I'd rather have it say "in fifteen minutes there is one a mile from the freeway".
- cuteboy19 4y agoHow would you make it clear to the user that they are sorted by proximity?