4 ms·

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 v

by 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 k3n 14y ago

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.