6 ms·

The goal was beautiful design, not good usability. You gotta admit that it looks good, and eye candy is usually extremely effective for user retention, even if

The goal was beautiful design, not good usability. You gotta admit that it looks good, and eye candy is usually extremely effective for user retention, even if the alternative handles better, technically.

chankstein38 4y ago
I have trouble distinguishing the two as an unusable design is usually automatically worse for me but you're not wrong in making the distinction that they specified beautiful. I guess I wish people would choose functional/usable over beautiful or merge them in a way that doesn't sacrifice the one I find more important! To be fair, I also just generally don't like the look of it without borders and stuff.
tmtvl 4y ago
> You gotta admit that it looks good I don't have to, and I'm not going to because it looks like crap. Why is "Cancel" just a word instead of a button? And while "Invite" is marginally better, a rounded rectangle is not much of a button either and doesn't immediately signify "oh, I can click this". I know some people prefer flat and featureless design (and there are jokes we could make about that), but that is very personal and tastes can vary widely. Though in the interests of fairness I will admit that there are people who do feel that kind of thing looks good.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  That problem exists in both versions though - i.e. making it more "beautiful" hasn't obviously affected the usability. But I can see at least one way in which it could - if shown on a wide screen and there were a lot of entries, matching up the "Team"/"Member" signifier with the contact name would be quite challenging. The lines in the orginal version may look a little clunky but do serve a purpose.
- waldothedog 4y ago
  What would “immediately” signify the ability to be clicked? And to whom would this sign have such a meaning?
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    Styling to make it look like a button which is jutting out would signify the option for interaction to anyone who's ever seen a device with physical buttons, like a keyboard, smartphone, television, remote control,...
    - waldothedog 4y ago
      Doesn’t this discount the nature of the medium? The option for interaction is inherent. Everything on a screen can be clicked. The language, iconography, and visual treatment combine to differentiate certain items and establish an expectation in the event of a click.
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        There already exists a convention of visual treatment to establish the appropriate expectation and differentiate items that actually do something in the event of a click on them, and it's the one specified in the comment you replied to. HTH!
  - wruza 4y ago
    To anyone? Everyone knows how a button looks, and in case you’re sure that that is a button, I invite you to explain every flat ui to my older relatives, using only words.
bufio 4y ago
It looks like bog standard webshit.
munk-a 4y ago
Good usability is beautiful. Valuing aesthetics over functionality is ugly.
amon22 4y ago
I also honestly prefer the border example

chankstein38 4y ago

I have trouble distinguishing the two as an unusable design is usually automatically worse for me but you're not wrong in making the distinction that they specified beautiful. I guess I wish people would choose functional/usable over beautiful or merge them in a way that doesn't sacrifice the one I find more important! To be fair, I also just generally don't like the look of it without borders and stuff.

tmtvl 4y ago

> You gotta admit that it looks good I don't have to, and I'm not going to because it looks like crap. Why is "Cancel" just a word instead of a button? And while "Invite" is marginally better, a rounded rectangle is not much of a button either and doesn't immediately signify "oh, I can click this". I know some people prefer flat and featureless design (and there are jokes we could make about that), but that is very personal and tastes can vary widely. Though in the interests of fairness I will admit that there are people who do feel that kind of thing looks good.

wizofaus 4y ago
That problem exists in both versions though - i.e. making it more "beautiful" hasn't obviously affected the usability. But I can see at least one way in which it could - if shown on a wide screen and there were a lot of entries, matching up the "Team"/"Member" signifier with the contact name would be quite challenging. The lines in the orginal version may look a little clunky but do serve a purpose.
waldothedog 4y ago
What would “immediately” signify the ability to be clicked? And to whom would this sign have such a meaning?
- tmtvl 4y ago
  Styling to make it look like a button which is jutting out would signify the option for interaction to anyone who's ever seen a device with physical buttons, like a keyboard, smartphone, television, remote control,...
  - waldothedog 4y ago
    Doesn’t this discount the nature of the medium? The option for interaction is inherent. Everything on a screen can be clicked. The language, iconography, and visual treatment combine to differentiate certain items and establish an expectation in the event of a click.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      There already exists a convention of visual treatment to establish the appropriate expectation and differentiate items that actually do something in the event of a click on them, and it's the one specified in the comment you replied to. HTH!
- wruza 4y ago
  To anyone? Everyone knows how a button looks, and in case you’re sure that that is a button, I invite you to explain every flat ui to my older relatives, using only words.

bufio 4y ago

It looks like bog standard webshit.

munk-a 4y ago

Good usability is beautiful. Valuing aesthetics over functionality is ugly.

amon22 4y ago

I also honestly prefer the border example