3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.