4 ms·

Not sure that Strive for Consistency should be a golden rule of all interface design. Software maybe. But the reality is the world is inconsistent and humans

Not sure that Strive for Consistency should be a golden rule of all interface design. Software maybe. But the reality is the world is inconsistent and humans mental model of tasks are inconsistent. Sometimes its better to design an interface that conforms to the world or the mental model. As a random example: You could have an interface on a car that is almost entirely touch screens. You might see replacing the steering wheel with a touch screen interface. That would be consistent but not a good mapping to people's mental model.

leetrout 3y ago
Not sure that is the best comparison because it removes the mechanical need for leverage, even with power steering. Now that we have more electric steer by wire... maybe.
ebiester 3y ago
Think of it more like this. On page A, you have a button. It looks like a button. When you click it, a dialog opens that confirms you want to perform an action. On page B, you click on the button, and it's a dropdown. You now have lost a sense of the mental model of the application world. It's possible that you may want one of three actions based on your mental model, but the visual should lead you to know "this is different." If you have something that looks like a
Jtsummers 3y ago
> that are applicable in most interactive systems. These principles, derived from experience and refined over three decades, require validation and tuning for specific design domains. No list such as this can be complete, but even the original list from 1985, has been well received as a useful guide to students and designers. The author already caveated that they aren't absolutes. That is, they aren't declaring you should follow these rules off a figurative cliff. That would be stupid. The presumption is that people would still exercise judgement.
ivan_gammel 3y ago
> You could have an interface on a car that is almost entirely touch screens. You might see replacing the steering wheel with a touch screen interface. That would be consistent but not a good mapping to people's mental model. Consistency means that users can expect the same behavior from elements with the same specific purpose. When you put steering wheel and infotainment system in the same classification bucket, it is not consistency, it is excessive abstraction.
projektfu 3y ago
When I was a kid there were toy RC cars that had two controls, kind of like 1-axis joysticks. The left one pushed upward would cause the car to go forward, possibly with more or less power. The right one pushed to the right allowed turning to the right (but not the left, like Zoolander). A consistent upgrade to this interface would be to allow reversing using the left control in a downward direction and turning left using the right control pushed to the left. An inconsistent application would be to have reverse on the right control pushed to the left and left turning on the left control pushed downward. Inconsistencies across classes are not uncommon and probably understandable given various expectations. For example, the same handlebar steering control behaves very differently on a two-wheeled motorcycle compared to a tricycle.
p1necone 3y ago
I feel like that's a bad example because touchscreen controls in cars are just bad in general. Adding a new one makes the car worse because the touchscreen control is bad, not because of anything to do with consistency - all the other touchscreen controls made the car worse too.
quickthrower2 3y ago
In this case the consistency is between what you learned to drive in, and the car you use now.
JusticeJuice 3y ago
+1, consistency above everything is a very common trap new designers fall into. Humans are messy.

leetrout 3y ago

Not sure that is the best comparison because it removes the mechanical need for leverage, even with power steering. Now that we have more electric steer by wire... maybe.

ebiester 3y ago

Think of it more like this. On page A, you have a button. It looks like a button. When you click it, a dialog opens that confirms you want to perform an action. On page B, you click on the button, and it's a dropdown. You now have lost a sense of the mental model of the application world. It's possible that you may want one of three actions based on your mental model, but the visual should lead you to know "this is different." If you have something that looks like a

Jtsummers 3y ago

> that are applicable in most interactive systems. These principles, derived from experience and refined over three decades, require validation and tuning for specific design domains. No list such as this can be complete, but even the original list from 1985, has been well received as a useful guide to students and designers. The author already caveated that they aren't absolutes. That is, they aren't declaring you should follow these rules off a figurative cliff. That would be stupid. The presumption is that people would still exercise judgement.

ivan_gammel 3y ago

> You could have an interface on a car that is almost entirely touch screens. You might see replacing the steering wheel with a touch screen interface. That would be consistent but not a good mapping to people's mental model. Consistency means that users can expect the same behavior from elements with the same specific purpose. When you put steering wheel and infotainment system in the same classification bucket, it is not consistency, it is excessive abstraction.

projektfu 3y ago

When I was a kid there were toy RC cars that had two controls, kind of like 1-axis joysticks. The left one pushed upward would cause the car to go forward, possibly with more or less power. The right one pushed to the right allowed turning to the right (but not the left, like Zoolander). A consistent upgrade to this interface would be to allow reversing using the left control in a downward direction and turning left using the right control pushed to the left. An inconsistent application would be to have reverse on the right control pushed to the left and left turning on the left control pushed downward. Inconsistencies across classes are not uncommon and probably understandable given various expectations. For example, the same handlebar steering control behaves very differently on a two-wheeled motorcycle compared to a tricycle.

p1necone 3y ago

I feel like that's a bad example because touchscreen controls in cars are just bad in general. Adding a new one makes the car worse because the touchscreen control is bad, not because of anything to do with consistency - all the other touchscreen controls made the car worse too.

quickthrower2 3y ago

In this case the consistency is between what you learned to drive in, and the car you use now.

JusticeJuice 3y ago

+1, consistency above everything is a very common trap new designers fall into. Humans are messy.