4 ms·

This thread reminds me why UX is so bad on most services. Most developers think of MX (My Experience), not UX. You're okay with going to different websites to

This thread reminds me why UX is so bad on most services. Most developers think of MX (My Experience), not UX. You're okay with going to different websites to find a book you might want to listen to. So everyone else should prefer that experience. Or, you could write a database query that finds the top 5 reads in 5 genres that runs once a week for the homepage. Or you can copy a few of those book recommendations onto the homepage and give people a nice place to start clicking around (great idea). All this resistance in the replies to a tiny bit of consideration for the website visitor just reveals another piece to the puzzle of why good UX is so rare. I've brought this up in the last couple comments, but it really is like listening to people go to war defending why they don't need a README for their Github repo. Except in LibriVox's case, it's a repo that everyone else spent hours of their life contributing to. Just make the dang README. Promote a few volunteer contributions.

BeetleB 1y ago
> Most developers think of MX (My Experience), not UX. Yes, yes and yes. I don't know how long you've been around, but in the (earlier) days of open source, this was very explicit: Open source authors are writing to solve their problem, not their users' problems. If they go out of their way to solve other people's problems, that's certainly nice, but not to be expected. This was very explicit, and well understood. We're not arguing with you that having a well curated list is a bad idea from a user's perspective. We're pointing out that doing it well is work, and doing it poorly does make things worse. We don't want people burnt out, so we don't want to push for this. > Or, you could write a database query that finds the top 5 reads in 5 genres that runs once a week for the homepage. This is the opposite of a well curated list. In my experience, such lists based on raw numbers leads to a poorer experience. There's a reason HN doesn't follow this approach. > Except in LibriVox's case, it's a repo that everyone else spent hours of their life contributing to. Just make the dang README. Promote a few volunteer contributions. Talk is cheap. Do you want to spend the time making a curated list? If so, go forth and volunteer!

BeetleB 1y ago

> Most developers think of MX (My Experience), not UX. Yes, yes and yes. I don't know how long you've been around, but in the (earlier) days of open source, this was very explicit: Open source authors are writing to solve their problem, not their users' problems. If they go out of their way to solve other people's problems, that's certainly nice, but not to be expected. This was very explicit, and well understood. We're not arguing with you that having a well curated list is a bad idea from a user's perspective. We're pointing out that doing it well is work, and doing it poorly does make things worse. We don't want people burnt out, so we don't want to push for this. > Or, you could write a database query that finds the top 5 reads in 5 genres that runs once a week for the homepage. This is the opposite of a well curated list. In my experience, such lists based on raw numbers leads to a poorer experience. There's a reason HN doesn't follow this approach. > Except in LibriVox's case, it's a repo that everyone else spent hours of their life contributing to. Just make the dang README. Promote a few volunteer contributions. Talk is cheap. Do you want to spend the time making a curated list? If so, go forth and volunteer!