3 ms·

Relevantly: https://theuserisdrunk.com/ https://theuserisdrunk.com/

Rendello 1y ago
> Your website should be so simple, a drunk person could use it. I remember the first time I read this post, the message really stuck with me. "The user is drunk" is a brilliant line. That being said, I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator.
- aidenn0 1y ago
  > That being said, I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator. Any application that will be used occasionally with the goal of not using it as quickly as possible should work this way. A counterexample would be e.g. retail POS software, which should be optimized for minimum work and maximum responsiveness for trained users.
  - whilenot-dev 1y ago
    Huh? "The user is drunk" as a rule is great, there's no need to redefine it. Especially for POS interfaces! You'd want them as intuitive as it gets, because their users can be under a lot of stress, and could, in fact, be drunk. I understand GP's "I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator" in two ways: 1. This rule isn't an excuse to stop raising the bar when it comes to interaction design ("drunk people won't notice the difference anyway"). 2. Some machines should only be operated when absolutely sober and the interface should reflect that requirement ("don't drink and drive!").
    - aidenn0 1y ago
      Maybe things have changed in the past two decades, but I definitely would have been fired from my retail job if I showed up drunk. The POS interface there was super non-intuitive, but very efficient. This was 20 years ago so the classic text-mode interface with F1-F12 keys assigned to different functions.
      - whilenot-dev 1y ago
        While I doubt there's a single job where it'd be allowed to show up drunk, I also happen to know several bar owners that like to share some drinks with their customers. As required by law here in Austria, also bars need to use a POS system. I worked on one almost 10 years ago.
    - Rendello 1y ago
      > You'd want them as intuitive as it gets [...] I've recently been reading up on the science of learning, and I realized I never considered what intuition meant to me. Merriam-Webster lists it as: > a: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference > b: immediate apprehension or cognition > c: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition If I could frame the thought of my original comment in terms of intuition, it would be: All software should be intuitive, at what point that intuition is built differs. For widest adoption, that software should be immediately intuitive to the widest group of people. For maximum efficiency in a given (usually professional) domain, that software should allow a user who has built up their intuition to effectively merge with the machine. I don't think one precludes the other, and a lot of the best software is immediately understood by a common user while having features for power-users. I do think there's a tradeoff to some degree though. If you're building a very specific technical tool, perhaps you can assume the user is a drunk programmer, but not a drunk grandmother. As in, the expected level of intuition need not be at the lowest common denominator.
lemonlearnings 1y ago
Ethically dubious. Paying someone to poison themselves to test your site. That they are up for it aint an excuse. If it was "ill test your site when I next come home from a big night out" it may be OK.
- stitched2gethr 1y ago
  Na. Consenting adults and all that.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  [dead]
- nucleardog 1y ago
  "I'll pay you to look at this and give me your thoughts next time you're drunk." and "I'll pay you to look at this when you're drunk." are not mutually exclusive.
  - lemonlearnings 1y ago
    Hence paragraph 2
- KTibow 1y ago
  It sounds like he actually orchestrates a "big night out" each time: One of the things I learned is that my review will be worse than useless if I am not having a good time the night I review it. I'll feel bad for underperforming, you'll feel bad for having a stressed, depressed drunkard on the line, and no one's knowledge of UX and the world is improved. So, I've made a few rules. One: I never drink alone. That means I need to ask friends whether they're up for a night out. I normally pay for their drinks, too. Two: I never schedule in a rush. That means that I now commit to a general two-week turnaround, but it can be longer than that, at times, and there's nothing I'm willing to do about it to make it faster.
7bit 1y ago
That's horrible. Throwing away your health like that for quick money is short sighted.
- lelandfe 1y ago
  - my dear mother watching the Super Bowl

> Your website should be so simple, a drunk person could use it. I remember the first time I read this post, the message really stuck with me. "The user is drunk" is a brilliant line. That being said, I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator.

aidenn0 1y ago
> That being said, I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator. Any application that will be used occasionally with the goal of not using it as quickly as possible should work this way. A counterexample would be e.g. retail POS software, which should be optimized for minimum work and maximum responsiveness for trained users.
- whilenot-dev 1y ago
  Huh? "The user is drunk" as a rule is great, there's no need to redefine it. Especially for POS interfaces! You'd want them as intuitive as it gets, because their users can be under a lot of stress, and could, in fact, be drunk. I understand GP's "I don't think every website or tool needs to aim for the lowest common denominator" in two ways: 1. This rule isn't an excuse to stop raising the bar when it comes to interaction design ("drunk people won't notice the difference anyway"). 2. Some machines should only be operated when absolutely sober and the interface should reflect that requirement ("don't drink and drive!").
  - aidenn0 1y ago
    Maybe things have changed in the past two decades, but I definitely would have been fired from my retail job if I showed up drunk. The POS interface there was super non-intuitive, but very efficient. This was 20 years ago so the classic text-mode interface with F1-F12 keys assigned to different functions.
    - whilenot-dev 1y ago
      While I doubt there's a single job where it'd be allowed to show up drunk, I also happen to know several bar owners that like to share some drinks with their customers. As required by law here in Austria, also bars need to use a POS system. I worked on one almost 10 years ago.
  - Rendello 1y ago
    > You'd want them as intuitive as it gets [...] I've recently been reading up on the science of learning, and I realized I never considered what intuition meant to me. Merriam-Webster lists it as: > a: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference > b: immediate apprehension or cognition > c: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition If I could frame the thought of my original comment in terms of intuition, it would be: All software should be intuitive, at what point that intuition is built differs. For widest adoption, that software should be immediately intuitive to the widest group of people. For maximum efficiency in a given (usually professional) domain, that software should allow a user who has built up their intuition to effectively merge with the machine. I don't think one precludes the other, and a lot of the best software is immediately understood by a common user while having features for power-users. I do think there's a tradeoff to some degree though. If you're building a very specific technical tool, perhaps you can assume the user is a drunk programmer, but not a drunk grandmother. As in, the expected level of intuition need not be at the lowest common denominator.

lemonlearnings 1y ago

Ethically dubious. Paying someone to poison themselves to test your site. That they are up for it aint an excuse. If it was "ill test your site when I next come home from a big night out" it may be OK.

stitched2gethr 1y ago
Na. Consenting adults and all that.
thunderfork 1y ago
[dead]
nucleardog 1y ago
"I'll pay you to look at this and give me your thoughts next time you're drunk." and "I'll pay you to look at this when you're drunk." are not mutually exclusive.
- lemonlearnings 1y ago
  Hence paragraph 2
KTibow 1y ago
It sounds like he actually orchestrates a "big night out" each time: One of the things I learned is that my review will be worse than useless if I am not having a good time the night I review it. I'll feel bad for underperforming, you'll feel bad for having a stressed, depressed drunkard on the line, and no one's knowledge of UX and the world is improved. So, I've made a few rules. One: I never drink alone. That means I need to ask friends whether they're up for a night out. I normally pay for their drinks, too. Two: I never schedule in a rush. That means that I now commit to a general two-week turnaround, but it can be longer than that, at times, and there's nothing I'm willing to do about it to make it faster.

7bit 1y ago

That's horrible. Throwing away your health like that for quick money is short sighted.

lelandfe 1y ago
- my dear mother watching the Super Bowl