4 ms·

> By the common-sense criteria. Stopped reading right here. Either provide UX research to back up your claims, or stop pretending that they apply to your mythi

> By the common-sense criteria. Stopped reading right here. Either provide UX research to back up your claims, or stop pretending that they apply to your mythical invention of "the user."

moe 14y ago
UX Research, eh? Let's just say your downvote on the original comment didn't make a dent, so much for a quick, unrepresentative poll. What I call Common Sense is ultimately no more than the essence of past UX research and can be obtained by a mere glance at what prevails in the grand petri dish. Cf. Altavista/Google, Myspace/Facebook, and the rise of Apple for just a few major case studies in the area of UI clutter. With regard to the siren-song of social-lockin I'll recommend to study the fate of Ping, which exemplifies what happens when even the big guys try to go against the grain. If you find a piece of formal "UX Research" claiming anything else then I'd be curious to see it.
- Pewpewarrows 14y ago
  I really hope you see the irony at some point that you're complaining about social elements in an inherently social page element: the comments section. And I didn't downvote your original comment, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Then again, I don't understand why people are sensitive about fake internet points to begin with.
  - moe 14y ago
    And suddenly the formal "UX research" is out of the picture - now that was quick. irony ... complaining about social elements in an inherently social page element: the comments section. That statement makes no sense. So you wouldn't mind HN adding all sorts of widgets, because it was social to begin with? Further if you read the thread again you'll notice that nowhere did I complain about social elements per se.
    - Pewpewarrows 14y ago
      How is formal UX research out of the picture? I asked you for some, you refused. If you're not going to even bother backing up your claim I'm not going to bother discussing it any more.
      - moe 14y ago
        I applied the gist of what I gathered from UX studies that I have seen, made plenty of claims based on that, and backed it with observations from the real world. Since you started out so keen on science I would have expected you to effortlessly debunk my claims with hard facts or at least a coherent counter-argument. Too bad that fizzled out so quickly...
        Pewpewarrows 14y ago
        Now you're just jumping through hoops to avoid linking to anything concrete. It's a shame, I was looking forward to hearing real arguments from you, instead of a fabricated "common sense."
        moe 14y ago
        Sorry, I'm still not clear what exactly you want from me. A paper explaining why clutter is universally bad? Seriously? You try so hard to come across as if you had a remote clue about the UX field, yet you want to debate one of the most basic premises? May I suggest to review the standard works (you have them on your shelf, I know you do); http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-%20Usability/dp/0321344758 http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-%20Usability/dp/032... http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385267746/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385267746/ Somehow you must have forgotten, well, everything, since you last read them. That's okay, happens to the best of us. However, you might come across a little less unarmed if you could at least memorize the title of Krug's book. Thanks for playing anyways.
        Pewpewarrows 14y ago

> By the common-sense criteria. Stopped reading right here. Either provide UX research to back up your claims, or stop pretending that they apply to your mythical invention of "the user."

moe 14y ago

UX Research, eh? Let's just say your downvote on the original comment didn't make a dent, so much for a quick, unrepresentative poll. What I call Common Sense is ultimately no more than the essence of past UX research and can be obtained by a mere glance at what prevails in the grand petri dish. Cf. Altavista/Google, Myspace/Facebook, and the rise of Apple for just a few major case studies in the area of UI clutter. With regard to the siren-song of social-lockin I'll recommend to study the fate of Ping, which exemplifies what happens when even the big guys try to go against the grain. If you find a piece of formal "UX Research" claiming anything else then I'd be curious to see it.

Pewpewarrows 14y ago
I really hope you see the irony at some point that you're complaining about social elements in an inherently social page element: the comments section. And I didn't downvote your original comment, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Then again, I don't understand why people are sensitive about fake internet points to begin with.
- moe 14y ago
  And suddenly the formal "UX research" is out of the picture - now that was quick. irony ... complaining about social elements in an inherently social page element: the comments section. That statement makes no sense. So you wouldn't mind HN adding all sorts of widgets, because it was social to begin with? Further if you read the thread again you'll notice that nowhere did I complain about social elements per se.
  - Pewpewarrows 14y ago
    How is formal UX research out of the picture? I asked you for some, you refused. If you're not going to even bother backing up your claim I'm not going to bother discussing it any more.
    - moe 14y ago
      I applied the gist of what I gathered from UX studies that I have seen, made plenty of claims based on that, and backed it with observations from the real world. Since you started out so keen on science I would have expected you to effortlessly debunk my claims with hard facts or at least a coherent counter-argument. Too bad that fizzled out so quickly...
      - Pewpewarrows 14y ago
        Now you're just jumping through hoops to avoid linking to anything concrete. It's a shame, I was looking forward to hearing real arguments from you, instead of a fabricated "common sense."
        moe 14y ago
        Sorry, I'm still not clear what exactly you want from me. A paper explaining why clutter is universally bad? Seriously? You try so hard to come across as if you had a remote clue about the UX field, yet you want to debate one of the most basic premises? May I suggest to review the standard works (you have them on your shelf, I know you do); http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-%20Usability/dp/0321344758 http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-%20Usability/dp/032... http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385267746/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385267746/ Somehow you must have forgotten, well, everything, since you last read them. That's okay, happens to the best of us. However, you might come across a little less unarmed if you could at least memorize the title of Krug's book. Thanks for playing anyways.
        Pewpewarrows 14y ago