3 ms·

One thing that really frustrated me with some designers in the software industry is that they seem to want to instinctively do very sparse designs akin to Twitt

One thing that really frustrated me with some designers in the software industry is that they seem to want to instinctively do very sparse designs akin to Twitter, etc... I've typically worked on engineering/scientific software where the audience want to see a lot of information and have many controls on the screen at once, often with customisation to make their workflows easier.

vundercind 2y ago
They do it while claiming it’s easier for the users, too. I call bullshit. I want to see the studies. I very much doubt they exist. One of the only sites my elderly father who can barely use a computer at all can navigate unassisted with any amount of confidence is craigslist. The “friendlier” and more “modern” the site (or app), the greater chance he’ll get lost and confused in it.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  I think it's provably bullshit with a simple thought experiment - what happens when you make a site "sparse" (removing controls, more whitespace, less information density)? Things that used to take 1-2 clicks to do take many many more clicks, as menus get buried under sub-sub-sub menus now to accommodate all the space you just wasted. When I'm designing a UI for personal use, I design by how many clicks it takes me to do a common task. Any design implementation that increases that metric is a hard no to me. It's a very provable, easy metric. More clicks = less usability. Full stop. Especially when the clicks are hidden behind confusing and inconsistent icons that you usually have to guess the meaning of.
- FridgeSeal 2y ago
  I bet the study, if there is one would be something like “some degree of white space can be helpful for delineating sections” and that conclusion has just been wrung to the ends of the earth, producing todays pointlessly sparse UI’s.
skydhash 2y ago
People can read. What no ones like to do is deciphering icons or hunting for elements because every updates keep moving them around. And relayout, because SPAs. In the old days, you learn what a button does and you can expect it to stay where it was for years.

vundercind 2y ago

They do it while claiming it’s easier for the users, too. I call bullshit. I want to see the studies. I very much doubt they exist. One of the only sites my elderly father who can barely use a computer at all can navigate unassisted with any amount of confidence is craigslist. The “friendlier” and more “modern” the site (or app), the greater chance he’ll get lost and confused in it.

JohnMakin 2y ago
I think it's provably bullshit with a simple thought experiment - what happens when you make a site "sparse" (removing controls, more whitespace, less information density)? Things that used to take 1-2 clicks to do take many many more clicks, as menus get buried under sub-sub-sub menus now to accommodate all the space you just wasted. When I'm designing a UI for personal use, I design by how many clicks it takes me to do a common task. Any design implementation that increases that metric is a hard no to me. It's a very provable, easy metric. More clicks = less usability. Full stop. Especially when the clicks are hidden behind confusing and inconsistent icons that you usually have to guess the meaning of.
FridgeSeal 2y ago
I bet the study, if there is one would be something like “some degree of white space can be helpful for delineating sections” and that conclusion has just been wrung to the ends of the earth, producing todays pointlessly sparse UI’s.

skydhash 2y ago

People can read. What no ones like to do is deciphering icons or hunting for elements because every updates keep moving them around. And relayout, because SPAs. In the old days, you learn what a button does and you can expect it to stay where it was for years.