5 ms·

I'm sorry, what smacks of fascism? The choice, in this case, is Apple's, inflicted on all of its customers. If anything that is not obviously harmful can be re

I'm sorry, what smacks of fascism? The choice, in this case, is Apple's, inflicted on all of its customers. If anything that is not obviously harmful can be reduced to mere "preference" then what is the point of hiring designers? just deliver raw html code and a textfield for users to write in their own css, right? Of course, I admit this is reducing the argument to absurdity, but so is calling my position "fascism". In truth, as product designers we make all kinds of decisions on behalf of our users. We use a system of judgement to rank the "goodness" and the "badness" of those decisions based on whether they make our user's lives easier or harder. (or make us more or less money, depending on your ethos) In what way does hiding the scrollbar improve anyone's lives? In the cases where it demonstrably makes user's lives harder, explain why that doesn't matter?

x0054 13y ago
Some people argue that Apple limits the users by not giving them enough options. You are of the opinion that Apple provides entirely too many user options. Not only should the users always have scroll bars on, but they also should not have the ability to turn them off. (correct me if I misunderstood)
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  what "some people" argue is irrelevant here. Who are "some people" anyway? "Apple provides entirely too many user options" is not in any way the argument I've made. My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake. If you want the generalised form of that argument, it is: 1. this, and other "preferences" are not arbitrary or meaningless. They have real consequences (even if the only real consequence is minor annoyance) 2. the presentation of too many choices is in fact, a real and well documented anti-pattern in UI-design. Too many choices is cognitive overload. Programmers like choices. programmers like power. but ordinary mortals don't care what colour their window title bars are, as long as the colour doesn't get in the way of their job. 3. Given the above, it is the UI designer's responsibility to be very opinionated about what the defaults of a system should be, and what should be configurable as a choice. (the fewer choices the better, generally, from a design perspective.) 4. as a corollary to that, I am aware that "some people" are uncomfortable about Apple's lack of configuration options. Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI. Or you end up with a monstrosity like the desktop linux ecosystem. It's essentially an argument from ignorance of the research.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake. That's a belief. I don't see any argument here. Why is it a mistake? Perhaps modern users, not tied to a legacy of scrollbars, could not care less about them? Perhaps 95% of users (with the exception of hackers) not even use them or notice them when they are there? >Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI. Whereas you are? And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because?
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      See argument upstream- in summary, autohiding scrollbars: Pros: Looks tidier sometimes Cons: Causes frustration and confusion. My question is: whose lives have been significantly improved by the addition of this feature? why does it exist? > Whereas you are? yes > And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because? because I am right and Apple is wrong. On top of that, the reaction to my position is so weird. Oh Zen, if you had your way we would be FORCED by your tyrannical fascist ways to look at ugly scrollbars ALL the time instead of just some of the time. :(
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >because I am right and Apple is wrong. A, ok then. Case closed.
    - Gormo 13y ago
      "Designers" should never be put in a position of designing a UI. Claiming the mantle of "designer" usually seems to reveal a preference for static aesthetics over functional utility. Nearly every time I see someone talking about "design" in the realm of user interfaces, or about making software "beautiful", they're invariably attempting to use concepts applicable to media intended for the presentation of information to a viewer in the context of an interface intended to facilitate dynamic interaction between a functional tool and the user, and it always seems to make the software more limited, less productive, and more frustrating to use. A user interface is about exposing software functionality and enabling users to maximize their efficient use of their tools. Optimizing a UI to look good in a screenshot means not optimizing the UI to provide efficient access to the functionality of the application, and not optimizing the flexibility of the application for users to adapt it to their own priorities and work styles. This trend of attempting to exercise top-down control over user experience needs to end, and software developers need to start paying attention to what users are actually trying to do with the products they build, instead of deferring to inappropriately-applied theoretical models offered by visual designers.

x0054 13y ago

Some people argue that Apple limits the users by not giving them enough options. You are of the opinion that Apple provides entirely too many user options. Not only should the users always have scroll bars on, but they also should not have the ability to turn them off. (correct me if I misunderstood)

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
what "some people" argue is irrelevant here. Who are "some people" anyway? "Apple provides entirely too many user options" is not in any way the argument I've made. My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake. If you want the generalised form of that argument, it is: 1. this, and other "preferences" are not arbitrary or meaningless. They have real consequences (even if the only real consequence is minor annoyance) 2. the presentation of too many choices is in fact, a real and well documented anti-pattern in UI-design. Too many choices is cognitive overload. Programmers like choices. programmers like power. but ordinary mortals don't care what colour their window title bars are, as long as the colour doesn't get in the way of their job. 3. Given the above, it is the UI designer's responsibility to be very opinionated about what the defaults of a system should be, and what should be configurable as a choice. (the fewer choices the better, generally, from a design perspective.) 4. as a corollary to that, I am aware that "some people" are uncomfortable about Apple's lack of configuration options. Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI. Or you end up with a monstrosity like the desktop linux ecosystem. It's essentially an argument from ignorance of the research.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >My argument is that having this specific option is a mistake. That's a belief. I don't see any argument here. Why is it a mistake? Perhaps modern users, not tied to a legacy of scrollbars, could not care less about them? Perhaps 95% of users (with the exception of hackers) not even use them or notice them when they are there? >Those people are not designers, and should not ever be put in the position of designing a UI. Whereas you are? And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because?
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    See argument upstream- in summary, autohiding scrollbars: Pros: Looks tidier sometimes Cons: Causes frustration and confusion. My question is: whose lives have been significantly improved by the addition of this feature? why does it exist? > Whereas you are? yes > And we should take your opinion on scrollbars over Apple designer's one, because? because I am right and Apple is wrong. On top of that, the reaction to my position is so weird. Oh Zen, if you had your way we would be FORCED by your tyrannical fascist ways to look at ugly scrollbars ALL the time instead of just some of the time. :(
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >because I am right and Apple is wrong. A, ok then. Case closed.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    "Designers" should never be put in a position of designing a UI. Claiming the mantle of "designer" usually seems to reveal a preference for static aesthetics over functional utility. Nearly every time I see someone talking about "design" in the realm of user interfaces, or about making software "beautiful", they're invariably attempting to use concepts applicable to media intended for the presentation of information to a viewer in the context of an interface intended to facilitate dynamic interaction between a functional tool and the user, and it always seems to make the software more limited, less productive, and more frustrating to use. A user interface is about exposing software functionality and enabling users to maximize their efficient use of their tools. Optimizing a UI to look good in a screenshot means not optimizing the UI to provide efficient access to the functionality of the application, and not optimizing the flexibility of the application for users to adapt it to their own priorities and work styles. This trend of attempting to exercise top-down control over user experience needs to end, and software developers need to start paying attention to what users are actually trying to do with the products they build, instead of deferring to inappropriately-applied theoretical models offered by visual designers.