4 ms·

You've omitted that the user found themselves in this flow by consciously clicking a button that says Share.

by mh- 1y ago

varispeed 1y ago
"Share" where? This doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. If you come to use the feature with intent to share it with your friend, you don't assume you will be sharing it with the whole internet.
- mh- 1y ago
  At that point you haven't decided; that's the whole point of the selections that come after you've chosen to share it. >Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches) If you don't want that behavior, not checking it is advisable. I'm no apologist for bad UI/UX; the tech industry is rife with it. I frequently mutter something like "how is the average person supposed to puzzle this out?" when I'm navigating insane flows on mainstream web apps. But, I'm with the other commenters who say we can't dumb everything down into nothingness, if we want anything resembling progress. This doesn't just extend to technology.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    You're assuming that clarity is universal - that if you understand something, it must be clear enough for everyone else. That's a textbook case of the false consensus effect and _neurotypical bias_. "Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches)" is not unambiguous. Many people - especially those with ASD, ADHD, or even just different mental models - interpret "web search" as internal search on the platform. That's a completely reasonable interpretation given how most websites work. Even the word "discoverable" sounds passive and controlled, not synonymous with "permanently indexed by Google." UX isn't about spoon-feeding idiots. It's about reducing cognitive load and accommodating different cognitive styles. Good UI accounts for diverse interpretations and explains high-stakes actions with precision. This option failed that standard. And your argument boils down to: "Well, it told you, technically." That’s not good enough. Legally, ethically, and practically, when an action has severe privacy implications, "technically correct" is a euphemism for design failure. This isn't about dumbing things down. It's about not designing exclusively for people who think like you. If you exclude everyone who reads or processes information differently, you're not building tech for the public - you're just building for a clique.

You've omitted that the user found themselves in this flow by consciously clicking a button that says Share.

by mh- 1y ago

You've omitted that the user found themselves in this flow by consciously clicking a button that says Share.

"Share" where? This doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. If you come to use the feature with intent to share it with your friend, you don't assume you will be sharing it with the whole internet.

mh- 1y ago
At that point you haven't decided; that's the whole point of the selections that come after you've chosen to share it. >Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches) If you don't want that behavior, not checking it is advisable. I'm no apologist for bad UI/UX; the tech industry is rife with it. I frequently mutter something like "how is the average person supposed to puzzle this out?" when I'm navigating insane flows on mainstream web apps. But, I'm with the other commenters who say we can't dumb everything down into nothingness, if we want anything resembling progress. This doesn't just extend to technology.
- varispeed 1y ago
  You're assuming that clarity is universal - that if you understand something, it must be clear enough for everyone else. That's a textbook case of the false consensus effect and _neurotypical bias_. "Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches)" is not unambiguous. Many people - especially those with ASD, ADHD, or even just different mental models - interpret "web search" as internal search on the platform. That's a completely reasonable interpretation given how most websites work. Even the word "discoverable" sounds passive and controlled, not synonymous with "permanently indexed by Google." UX isn't about spoon-feeding idiots. It's about reducing cognitive load and accommodating different cognitive styles. Good UI accounts for diverse interpretations and explains high-stakes actions with precision. This option failed that standard. And your argument boils down to: "Well, it told you, technically." That’s not good enough. Legally, ethically, and practically, when an action has severe privacy implications, "technically correct" is a euphemism for design failure. This isn't about dumbing things down. It's about not designing exclusively for people who think like you. If you exclude everyone who reads or processes information differently, you're not building tech for the public - you're just building for a clique.