5 ms·

Quite to the contrary, I thought the article contained a great list. I see these mistakes all the damn time, and for that reason, it's clear that there's not a

Quite to the contrary, I thought the article contained a great list. I see these mistakes all the damn time, and for that reason, it's clear that there's not a universal understanding of how to get them right. This high-level "here's a few tips" view of the common ways to improve the low hanging fruit (sorry) turns out to be really useful.

teamhappy 11y ago
> This high-level "here's a few tips" view [...] turns out to be really useful. Do you really think spelling out "consistency makes your UI easier to comprehend" is gonna stop people from designing inconsistent UIs? I'd argue it's much more useful to give low-level examples of what makes a UI look/feel/behave consistent.
- calinet6 11y ago
  Perfection is not a requirement. It's a nice article. I refuse to be critical of something just because it's not the epitome of function that solves all the problems in UX design education.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    My point is not perfection, it's usefulness. Telling a pilot not to crash a plane wouldn't result in a "nice" or useful article.
    - adevguy 11y ago
      Except the article is not "don't crash the plane", it's more like "here's a few things to keep in mind while you're flying". And sure, to an experienced pilot "keep an eye on your instruments" is obvious and not very useful. To a rookie however, it's perfectly valid advice.
    - calinet6 11y ago
      Well, you and I can disagree on the usefulness of this article then. By that analogy, I see quite a few concrete and "useful" details on how not to crash the plane, here. It's just a nice summary of some common errors, with suggestions on how to avoid them. It's not the end-all utility to stop them from happening, but it's a good high level view.
      - paulojreis 11y ago
        Without even a single reference to "get to know your users"? Sorry, but no. It's not a nice summary; it's actually what I wouldn't give to students or someone wanting to get a grasp on UX. This kind of "guidelines-based" approach is detrimental to UX, as it enforces the idea of focusing on details instead of considering UX as a whole.
        voik 11y ago
        You seem to be conflating UX and UI. The article is no more than the title promises; principles of a good UI.
paulojreis 11y ago
> Quite to the contrary, I thought the article contained a great list. It's not a great list and it's not clearly illustrated. A good starter list would be a combination of Molich and Nielsen's heuristics and Don Norman design principles. But, really, these lists put the emphasis on details, and design should be holistic. If there's a starter advice to give is to study people and their context. There's really little value in having a consistent UI that doesn't map to the user's mental model. > I see these mistakes all the damn time, and for that reason, it's clear that there's not a universal understanding of how to get them right You're right, obviously there's not. However, that doesn't indicate that this list is good or even remotely useful; it's - for me - an indicator that people don't want or don't try to educate themselves and, even worst, IT people are oblivious of design's scope and importance. > This high-level "here's a few tips" view of the common ways to improve the low hanging fruit (sorry) turns out to be really useful. There are really many useful - better, clearer, sounder and validated - resources on UI design, UX and usability. The real problem is people doing UI work without education and knowledge, not the lack of resources.

teamhappy 11y ago

> This high-level "here's a few tips" view [...] turns out to be really useful. Do you really think spelling out "consistency makes your UI easier to comprehend" is gonna stop people from designing inconsistent UIs? I'd argue it's much more useful to give low-level examples of what makes a UI look/feel/behave consistent.

calinet6 11y ago
Perfection is not a requirement. It's a nice article. I refuse to be critical of something just because it's not the epitome of function that solves all the problems in UX design education.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  My point is not perfection, it's usefulness. Telling a pilot not to crash a plane wouldn't result in a "nice" or useful article.
  - adevguy 11y ago
    Except the article is not "don't crash the plane", it's more like "here's a few things to keep in mind while you're flying". And sure, to an experienced pilot "keep an eye on your instruments" is obvious and not very useful. To a rookie however, it's perfectly valid advice.
  - calinet6 11y ago
    Well, you and I can disagree on the usefulness of this article then. By that analogy, I see quite a few concrete and "useful" details on how not to crash the plane, here. It's just a nice summary of some common errors, with suggestions on how to avoid them. It's not the end-all utility to stop them from happening, but it's a good high level view.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      Without even a single reference to "get to know your users"? Sorry, but no. It's not a nice summary; it's actually what I wouldn't give to students or someone wanting to get a grasp on UX. This kind of "guidelines-based" approach is detrimental to UX, as it enforces the idea of focusing on details instead of considering UX as a whole.
      - voik 11y ago
        You seem to be conflating UX and UI. The article is no more than the title promises; principles of a good UI.

paulojreis 11y ago

> Quite to the contrary, I thought the article contained a great list. It's not a great list and it's not clearly illustrated. A good starter list would be a combination of Molich and Nielsen's heuristics and Don Norman design principles. But, really, these lists put the emphasis on details, and design should be holistic. If there's a starter advice to give is to study people and their context. There's really little value in having a consistent UI that doesn't map to the user's mental model. > I see these mistakes all the damn time, and for that reason, it's clear that there's not a universal understanding of how to get them right You're right, obviously there's not. However, that doesn't indicate that this list is good or even remotely useful; it's - for me - an indicator that people don't want or don't try to educate themselves and, even worst, IT people are oblivious of design's scope and importance. > This high-level "here's a few tips" view of the common ways to improve the low hanging fruit (sorry) turns out to be really useful. There are really many useful - better, clearer, sounder and validated - resources on UI design, UX and usability. The real problem is people doing UI work without education and knowledge, not the lack of resources.