5 ms·

I feel this way too. I even kind of like the no bullshit design ("design") on PHP's site as well. It's fast and it's clear and it makes me reminisce about the t

by gebe 14y ago

I feel this way too. I even kind of like the no bullshit design ("design") on PHP's site as well. It's fast and it's clear and it makes me reminisce about the times when I didn't need a top of the line computer just to surf the fucking web.

saiko-chriskun 14y ago
It is /not/ "in the eye of the beholder". UX is a science. If you can't tell the difference between PHP's site and, say, git's, well, I don't think there's much else to talk about here.
- debaserab2 14y ago
  Er, what? Please explain -- I type a function name into PHP's search box (or actually, at this point it's so well indexed on Google all I need to do is type the function name into Chrome's omnibox) and I get exactly what I'm looking for. I'm guessing I'm not in the minority of people who visit PHP's site for language doc / reference. As an end user, php.net gives me what I'm looking for 95% of the time. How is that not good UX? I do like github and find it to be well organized as well, although it's search leaves something to be desired and sometimes I find myself fumbling through the UI to find a specific git feature. Although I'd argue that the breadth of functionality they need to cover is beyond that of a language site like PHP's. On a complete sidenote, I've always thought github's 404 page was neat, but what does it have to do with good UX?
  - sgdesign 14y ago
    I know you're replying to Saiko-chriskun, but I would just like to point out that my post was not about UX. I don't have any complaints about the UX of the Go site (although as far as PHP is concerned, they could probably remove some of the clutter on there).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - k3n 14y ago
    Ok, you're able to accomplish your given task on php.net; it's functionally complete to you, someone who has probably visited it many times. It really isn't a very high standard to find the only text input box on the page and type in exactly what you're looking for. And, that doesn't inherently make it well-organized, nor does it say anything about how discoverable content is, or how well the interaction is with the commenting system, or anything else really. It is a science, I implore you to read up more on it if you really think your anecdote is an example of 'good' UX (and by extension, design).
    - debaserab2 14y ago
      I haven't "read up" on UX (a term only popularized within the last few years), but I have developed websites for the last decade or so. I'm not sure what the sciences say, but in my opinion good user experience starts with knowing who your audience is. I still argue that ~95% of php.net's audience is there for documentation reference. If 95% of your audience needs to simply look up a language construct or function, how can one to two page requests be perceived as bad UX? I can literally type in http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] and get exactly what I want. The only thing I need to memorize is a domain name. And if I'm too lazy for that, it's undoubtedly the #1 hit on Google.
      - k3n 14y ago
        True, the audience has a lot to do with it, but just because something "works" doesn't mean that it's optimal. Take for instance, one of the 1st things many might use the site for: downloading PHP. There's a downloads page, and then there's a Windows download page, and they're both fundamentally different. It's as if you're going to a completely different site, which breaks any continuity there was to begin with. Am I even still on php.net? Likewise, what's the utility of the tutorial[1]? It directs the user to Apache's website to download a server, even though one has been bundled with PHP for 6 months now. A server that's included by default for the sole reason of making local development easier, but they can't even keep their "newbie" tutorial up-to-date even after 6 months? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying php.net is /bad/; rather, I think there's room for improvement.

by gebe 14y ago

saiko-chriskun 14y ago

It is /not/ "in the eye of the beholder". UX is a science. If you can't tell the difference between PHP's site and, say, git's, well, I don't think there's much else to talk about here.

debaserab2 14y ago
Er, what? Please explain -- I type a function name into PHP's search box (or actually, at this point it's so well indexed on Google all I need to do is type the function name into Chrome's omnibox) and I get exactly what I'm looking for. I'm guessing I'm not in the minority of people who visit PHP's site for language doc / reference. As an end user, php.net gives me what I'm looking for 95% of the time. How is that not good UX? I do like github and find it to be well organized as well, although it's search leaves something to be desired and sometimes I find myself fumbling through the UI to find a specific git feature. Although I'd argue that the breadth of functionality they need to cover is beyond that of a language site like PHP's. On a complete sidenote, I've always thought github's 404 page was neat, but what does it have to do with good UX?
- sgdesign 14y ago
  I know you're replying to Saiko-chriskun, but I would just like to point out that my post was not about UX. I don't have any complaints about the UX of the Go site (although as far as PHP is concerned, they could probably remove some of the clutter on there).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- k3n 14y ago
  Ok, you're able to accomplish your given task on php.net; it's functionally complete to you, someone who has probably visited it many times. It really isn't a very high standard to find the only text input box on the page and type in exactly what you're looking for. And, that doesn't inherently make it well-organized, nor does it say anything about how discoverable content is, or how well the interaction is with the commenting system, or anything else really. It is a science, I implore you to read up more on it if you really think your anecdote is an example of 'good' UX (and by extension, design).
  - debaserab2 14y ago
    I haven't "read up" on UX (a term only popularized within the last few years), but I have developed websites for the last decade or so. I'm not sure what the sciences say, but in my opinion good user experience starts with knowing who your audience is. I still argue that ~95% of php.net's audience is there for documentation reference. If 95% of your audience needs to simply look up a language construct or function, how can one to two page requests be perceived as bad UX? I can literally type in http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] and get exactly what I want. The only thing I need to memorize is a domain name. And if I'm too lazy for that, it's undoubtedly the #1 hit on Google.
    - k3n 14y ago
      True, the audience has a lot to do with it, but just because something "works" doesn't mean that it's optimal. Take for instance, one of the 1st things many might use the site for: downloading PHP. There's a downloads page, and then there's a Windows download page, and they're both fundamentally different. It's as if you're going to a completely different site, which breaks any continuity there was to begin with. Am I even still on php.net? Likewise, what's the utility of the tutorial[1]? It directs the user to Apache's website to download a server, even though one has been bundled with PHP for 6 months now. A server that's included by default for the sole reason of making local development easier, but they can't even keep their "newbie" tutorial up-to-date even after 6 months? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying php.net is /bad/; rather, I think there's room for improvement.