4 ms·

> Back then you could test your UI on people that were a completely blank slate, having possible never used a computer before. You could focus on making the bes

> Back then you could test your UI on people that were a completely blank slate, having possible never used a computer before. You could focus on making the best possible UI there is. This is a really great point. Like many others on this thread I miss "old" UI design, and like many posters can explain why. There's been a large transition to hiding UI, not marking interactable UI, and not spacially locating related UI elements. Recently I watched one of my nieces use her phone. She was trying to do something, frustrated and telling me, but had not yet asked me to help. (I offer to help, but not to do something for them - to guide but let them achieve their goal.) I realised she was essentially tapping the screen looking for something that responded to taps. She didn't know what would react. Now, she knows lists can be scrolled, buttons etc can be clicked... but does she? Because there are no buttons, often, today and the button she needed, which I could see onscreen, was just text, no border indicating clickability. I've heard anecdotally that the big UI designers in companies like Apple don't mind this because 'everyone already knows how to use their phones' and Macs / Windows. This ignores the young -- but we often ignore the young and expect them to learn -- and it ignores the elderly, those with bad eyesight, those who have not before now had the financial opportunity to own something, and so forth. There are lots, and always will be lots, of new people. And I think that designing such that it can be used only by those who already know how to use it is a failure. Not just because there are always those who don't know, but because designing such that it can be used by anyone is more optimal. And finally, that designing such that it can be be used by _anyone_ means _everyone_ can use it. Phrased another way, another golden quote I cannot attribute is, 'accessibility is for everyone.' Which is a way of saying, designing for the non-average user who may have difficulties makes usage much easier for the average user too.

SebastianKra 4y ago
> And I think that designing such that it can be used only by those who already know how to use it is a failure. Why? Cars aren't a failure because they need to be learnt, neither is reading, 10-finger typing, math, ... We teach these things because they make other tasks more efficient. Similarly, interfaces are converging to a somewhat complex, but actually quite consistent, set of conventions that allows you to accomplish an infinite set of tasks. You might argue that we could achieve the same thing with less complex conventions, but I disagree. According to the article, subjects struggled with nested folders, yet now, hierarchies are a hugely important concept.
- retrac 4y ago
  On a general purpose device, I really am a believer that software should teach the user how to use it, or document how to use it. How else would you do it? A manual? Which is done in software these days, anyway. Making as much as possible discoverable in the interface is good design. The more of that which can be done, the less that needs to be learnt explicitly. Maybe not everything can be, but 40 years ago the Mac applied this principle consistently to its interface and it introduced tens of millions of people to computing who were otherwise put off by having to read a manual first.
  - SebastianKra 4y ago
    > How else would you [learn to use it]? Randomly tapping elements on the screen and seeing what happens is a perfectly acceptable learning strategy for a child. From there, you might learn that an accent color can represent links; That a row of buttons, where one is emphasised, might be a tab-bar; That holding on an element will open a secondary menu; That little arrows represent folded content; that a list on the left might change content on the right; That certain icons always lead to similar functionality; Side note: OP's neice was wildly tapping the screen, because she likely learned that nowadays nearly everything is interactive (Go on YouTube and find me one element that can't be tapped).
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >Randomly tapping elements on the screen and seeing what happens is a perfectly acceptable learning strategy for a child. Sure, but that doesn't mean that a UI that requires the user to randomly tap everywhere to see which spots will do something is as well designed as one which indicates what parts do what.
wvenable 4y ago
I had trouble with Microsoft parental setting website the other day -- I could not find the option I was looking for. Eventually I found some documentation and that's when it hit me: the completely unstyled plain text at the top of a section was actually a "tab bar" which you click on to get pages of more options! This sort of minimalism in design is completely frustrating. Being familiar with common UI paradigms only works if the UI designers actually use them.

SebastianKra 4y ago

> And I think that designing such that it can be used only by those who already know how to use it is a failure. Why? Cars aren't a failure because they need to be learnt, neither is reading, 10-finger typing, math, ... We teach these things because they make other tasks more efficient. Similarly, interfaces are converging to a somewhat complex, but actually quite consistent, set of conventions that allows you to accomplish an infinite set of tasks. You might argue that we could achieve the same thing with less complex conventions, but I disagree. According to the article, subjects struggled with nested folders, yet now, hierarchies are a hugely important concept.

retrac 4y ago
On a general purpose device, I really am a believer that software should teach the user how to use it, or document how to use it. How else would you do it? A manual? Which is done in software these days, anyway. Making as much as possible discoverable in the interface is good design. The more of that which can be done, the less that needs to be learnt explicitly. Maybe not everything can be, but 40 years ago the Mac applied this principle consistently to its interface and it introduced tens of millions of people to computing who were otherwise put off by having to read a manual first.
- SebastianKra 4y ago
  > How else would you [learn to use it]? Randomly tapping elements on the screen and seeing what happens is a perfectly acceptable learning strategy for a child. From there, you might learn that an accent color can represent links; That a row of buttons, where one is emphasised, might be a tab-bar; That holding on an element will open a secondary menu; That little arrows represent folded content; that a list on the left might change content on the right; That certain icons always lead to similar functionality; Side note: OP's neice was wildly tapping the screen, because she likely learned that nowadays nearly everything is interactive (Go on YouTube and find me one element that can't be tapped).
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >Randomly tapping elements on the screen and seeing what happens is a perfectly acceptable learning strategy for a child. Sure, but that doesn't mean that a UI that requires the user to randomly tap everywhere to see which spots will do something is as well designed as one which indicates what parts do what.

wvenable 4y ago

I had trouble with Microsoft parental setting website the other day -- I could not find the option I was looking for. Eventually I found some documentation and that's when it hit me: the completely unstyled plain text at the top of a section was actually a "tab bar" which you click on to get pages of more options! This sort of minimalism in design is completely frustrating. Being familiar with common UI paradigms only works if the UI designers actually use them.