3 ms·

On first open, I immediately thought "whoa, I'm lost." Then I thought... "way too much effort to parse this information." Of course its almost surely because I

by apsurd 17y ago

On first open, I immediately thought "whoa, I'm lost." Then I thought... "way too much effort to parse this information." Of course its almost surely because I am so used to the HN simplicity and directness. But it is indeed hard to parse for me. Lists are very very friendly. I find myself being able to parse HN very fast, starting from the top left, reading each listed line until it loses my interest, and then proceeding. Very hard to do on your site since much of my effort is ignoring the design aspect and also the fact that I have to scan so wide horizontally does not help. Much easier for my mind to know that each line is its own concept, and a newline refreshes the concept. With your box model, my mind has to consciously give meaning to the structure and boxes. Same thing for hierarchy. There is an assumed, implied, and very natural order with a list. Not so with your box model. Perhaps I'm just thinking too much but for usability, your site gets a "too much effort." and I'd much prefer HN. Of course as you may have guessed, I'm not a design guy. I can appreciate and love good design, but my take is that design should complement the goal in not only an aesthetic but utilitarian manner. I feel there is just too much benefit in using the HN list model to go with anything else.

adamhowell 17y ago
Thanks a lot, apsurd, I agree with a lot of that and if that's the overwhelming feedback I'll reconsider. I just dislike how images look to the left of the text on Digg, Reddit, etc. so I wanted to try and break out of that a bit. But if it's unreadable it's unreadable.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I'm sorry, it's unreadable. It was in fact the first thing that struck me as I entered the site. Anyways, I highly recommend some books on cognitive ergonomics - it's a bit odd that we have a bunch of UX guys running around who don't even know what the term means. It's generally understood that, for western countries anyways, people read content from top to bottom, left to right. When trying to present something in a skimmable, easily parsable way, you must stick with this format. The somewhat flaky nature of your thumbnailing is also distracting. When presenting a list, the list must be consistent - and right now it is anything but. Behaviour and location of information radically differs between thumbnailed vs. non-thumbnailed entries. No offense, but the move away from the top-down list seems driven more by an attempt to be different rather than any perceived gain in usability.
  - adamhowell 17y ago
    I don't remember mentioning that I didn't know what cognitive ergonomics means, but thanks for the feedback.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      No offense was intended - I was more referring to my experience with UX guys who don't know the basics of cognitive ergonomics - I did not mean to imply that you did not yourself. Nonetheless, the main page is a pretty gigantic violation of basic cognitive ergonomics tenets, and IMHO trades way too much usability for what I perceive as mere prettiness. Also, I'm very skeptical of the usefulness of the thumbnails altogether - the thumbnail communicates nothing (usually it's a screengrab of a wall of text) and doesn't tell me anything about what I'm about to visit.
      - adamhowell 17y ago
        > IMHO trades way too much usability for what I perceive as mere prettiness I don't disagree with you. I'm going to try and find the time to add a toggle b/n list view and grid view so the user can save their preference. Then if it seems that most use the list view, I might just make that the default. > Also, I'm very skeptical of the usefulness of the thumbnails altogether Thumbnails of designs are a pretty standard convention with "design gallery"-type sites (http://cssremix.com http://cssremix.com, http://www.unmatchedstyle.com http://www.unmatchedstyle.com, etc). It's meant to do nothing more than give you a small idea of the site you're about to visit. The only alternative would be listing the site's title or URL and that certainly wouldn't be any more helpful. Thanks again for the feedback.
joeminkie 17y ago
I have to agree. The large bold type in short lines is hard to read. As with HN, you should be able to scan quickly. I like larger type than most people so that's good, but longer line lengths are essential. Another subtle thing about HN and is the color. The black (or almost black) and white is too jarring for quick scanning. If you want to keep the box design with images check out http://www.notcot.org/ http://www.notcot.org/. Also, this article: http://www.brandonwalkin.com/blog/2009/08/10/managing-ui-complexity/ http://www.brandonwalkin.com/blog/2009/08/10/managing-ui-com... specifically the part where he mocks up the Aperture 2.0 filter window with iLife-style controls (in regards to your double border on the boxes). Despite all of this, though, it is a good idea and a good start. I hope it works out.
- adamhowell 17y ago
  > The black (or almost black) and white is too jarring for quick scanning Agreed, I was going back and forth between making sure the article text didn't get overwhelmed by the screenshots and vice versa.
jeroen 17y ago
Same here. A list is just much easier to read. You also have some errors in your html ( http://vldtr.com/?key=webdesignerd.com http://vldtr.com/?key=webdesignerd.com ). Especially the double use of id="header" could lead to some unexpected behaviour at some point. And don't forget to encode & as &

by apsurd 17y ago

adamhowell 17y ago

Thanks a lot, apsurd, I agree with a lot of that and if that's the overwhelming feedback I'll reconsider. I just dislike how images look to the left of the text on Digg, Reddit, etc. so I wanted to try and break out of that a bit. But if it's unreadable it's unreadable.

potatolicious 17y ago
I'm sorry, it's unreadable. It was in fact the first thing that struck me as I entered the site. Anyways, I highly recommend some books on cognitive ergonomics - it's a bit odd that we have a bunch of UX guys running around who don't even know what the term means. It's generally understood that, for western countries anyways, people read content from top to bottom, left to right. When trying to present something in a skimmable, easily parsable way, you must stick with this format. The somewhat flaky nature of your thumbnailing is also distracting. When presenting a list, the list must be consistent - and right now it is anything but. Behaviour and location of information radically differs between thumbnailed vs. non-thumbnailed entries. No offense, but the move away from the top-down list seems driven more by an attempt to be different rather than any perceived gain in usability.
- adamhowell 17y ago
  I don't remember mentioning that I didn't know what cognitive ergonomics means, but thanks for the feedback.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    No offense was intended - I was more referring to my experience with UX guys who don't know the basics of cognitive ergonomics - I did not mean to imply that you did not yourself. Nonetheless, the main page is a pretty gigantic violation of basic cognitive ergonomics tenets, and IMHO trades way too much usability for what I perceive as mere prettiness. Also, I'm very skeptical of the usefulness of the thumbnails altogether - the thumbnail communicates nothing (usually it's a screengrab of a wall of text) and doesn't tell me anything about what I'm about to visit.
    - adamhowell 17y ago
      > IMHO trades way too much usability for what I perceive as mere prettiness I don't disagree with you. I'm going to try and find the time to add a toggle b/n list view and grid view so the user can save their preference. Then if it seems that most use the list view, I might just make that the default. > Also, I'm very skeptical of the usefulness of the thumbnails altogether Thumbnails of designs are a pretty standard convention with "design gallery"-type sites (http://cssremix.com http://cssremix.com, http://www.unmatchedstyle.com http://www.unmatchedstyle.com, etc). It's meant to do nothing more than give you a small idea of the site you're about to visit. The only alternative would be listing the site's title or URL and that certainly wouldn't be any more helpful. Thanks again for the feedback.

joeminkie 17y ago

I have to agree. The large bold type in short lines is hard to read. As with HN, you should be able to scan quickly. I like larger type than most people so that's good, but longer line lengths are essential. Another subtle thing about HN and is the color. The black (or almost black) and white is too jarring for quick scanning. If you want to keep the box design with images check out http://www.notcot.org/ http://www.notcot.org/. Also, this article: http://www.brandonwalkin.com/blog/2009/08/10/managing-ui-complexity/ http://www.brandonwalkin.com/blog/2009/08/10/managing-ui-com... specifically the part where he mocks up the Aperture 2.0 filter window with iLife-style controls (in regards to your double border on the boxes). Despite all of this, though, it is a good idea and a good start. I hope it works out.

adamhowell 17y ago
> The black (or almost black) and white is too jarring for quick scanning Agreed, I was going back and forth between making sure the article text didn't get overwhelmed by the screenshots and vice versa.

jeroen 17y ago

Same here. A list is just much easier to read. You also have some errors in your html ( http://vldtr.com/?key=webdesignerd.com http://vldtr.com/?key=webdesignerd.com ). Especially the double use of id="header" could lead to some unexpected behaviour at some point. And don't forget to encode & as &