4 ms·
That was my first take as well, but after reading some of the previous articles by the author, it's not really about the size of elements on the screen. It's mo
by clnq 3y ago
That was my first take as well, but after reading some of the previous articles by the author, it's not really about the size of elements on the screen. It's more about being able to "zoom" into information in a system, which is a part of the user selecting their own view of data in complex systems.
No good UX should mess with literal zooming of web elements. I'm looking at responsive design and zoom-disabling apps in particular.
But when an app presents me with an interface to a ton of data, like Spotify giving me access to practically all the music I could ever care about, I would like to customize that interface as much as possible. Let's say, sometimes I might want to find the most popular music in a region, another time I might want to find sort regions by how much a particular song is popular. Maybe I might want to figure out the average length of all Jazz pieces, or the average volume.
The author talks about being able to achieve that through UX instead of SQL queries in general, and in this post -- about the specific idea of asking the UX to give more context about an element.
- lukeschlather 3y agoIt's no better. I want to compare a thing in item A to a thing in item B so I zoom in on item B and the thing I wanted to compare in item A disappears. Spotify is actually a pretty good example of this, they've been steadily removing context for a while. It's gotten to where it's impossible to see more than 5 items at a time in a lot of their views.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago> Spotify is actually a pretty good example of this, they've been steadily removing context for a while. It's gotten to where it's impossible to see more than 5 items at a time in a lot of their views. Spotify is a weird one: I'd gladly pay 2x (maybe 5x?) Spotify's price simply as a database of music files licensed for my own personal consumption, provided I get to use my own Spotify client software because I don't want their Chromium-based UI[1] (for context, I'm still using Winamp). But Spotify aren't listening: they donn't want my money unless they get to control the UX, but I want to control my own UX, and even though I'm prepared to pay a premium to compensate them for their loss of access to my desktop they aren't interested. Kinda reminds me of when Twitter Blue first launched: it still contained ads, and didn't come with any kind of Twitter API access to allow third-party clients. It's the worst of both worlds. It's definitely a part of platform-enshittification, but the frustrating part is that it's just unnecessarily harming the business via reputational-harm and poor power-user UX, and worst of all: leaving money on the table. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14088483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14088483