33 ms·
macOS had this right: dialog buttons read in ascending order of intent, with allowances for changing the default button to the one that's least destructive with
by robertoandred 3y ago
macOS had this right: dialog buttons read in ascending order of intent, with allowances for changing the default button to the one that's least destructive without changing the button order. Simply by reading, you were shown all available options and ended with the one you likely want to click.
Then they threw it away to match iOS.
- masswerk 3y agoArguably, iOS compensated much (and even added) in the original skeuomorphic / Forstall-era designs. (Famously, toddlers were able to operate these interfaces.) The crucial failure was not reconsidering this from the basics for flat UI. At this point, it became unavoidably a mix of what had been learned by users, but was not indicated anymore, because you don't want to break traditions, and what was actually in the UI language. As a result, instead of a clear language, there is now a diffuse aura of how things may work. (Also, reportedly – I have no way to corroborate this –, in the Ive-era, designs were evaluated in print-outs, which is simply how not to do interaction design.)
- alkonaut 3y agoThat argument can easily be switched around. I likely want to do what I'm asked (It's likely I initiated it). So having "Ok whatever whatever whatever" is good. I'm assuming now of course that I'm optimizing not for least risk but for least reading.