Gregory's Server
 127 comments
@devinprater @davidaugust Sounds like basically all of Linux to me anyway. Not gonna mention the editors that shall not be named, but every single one of them has that, probably even nano. They're just capable of explaining themselves.     @davidaugust I had a computer teacher (the only one I ever had, back in the apple 2 days when I was in school) say once that "If the program needs a manual, it's a terrible program."  @FirefighterGeek @davidaugust And The Industry stopped printing manuals, but not writing bad programs. @the100rabh @davidaugust Thereβs also the problem that what we find intuitive now, we had to learn at some point. If a UI is truly self explanatory, it must also work for someone with no prior knowledge or skills. With that being said, I believe there are some things which must be learned regardless. For example, you have to know the basics on how the internet works to understand the Fediverse. The different apps, websites and services are confusing if you donβt understand the reason for their existence. @GlowingLantern youβre right. Solid UX design and interaction design of all sorts build on, accommodate and really only thrive when the knowledge, experiences, cultural realities and more of the people using it are taken into account. A round door knob is intuitive once one is shown but only if one is not differently limbed. However, a door handle (like pictured) even some animals may be able to figure out with no instruction or example.  @davidaugust and just like a joke, it only works if the joke teller and the joke hearer have the same context and frame of reference @mensrea yup. Exactly right. UX thrives when such things are accounted for and used well. @davidaugust and like a Joke UX is geared towards an audience with a context. There is no Joke that works for any or every audience @stw exactly right. There are some that have wide appeal, and UX can be built similarly to try to be as accessible as possible. What was once studied to be the funniest joke internationally for instance: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/03/3  I'm just going to tag: #Mastodon #MastodonUX #MastodonDesign #MastodonServer #MastodonQuestions For... no particular reason. :) @davidaugust strong disagree. People often spend years being taught to read, but I wouldn't say the UI of books is bad because of that; it's just not optimized for beginners. Once you become a proficient reader, it's often a more convenient and efficient way to access knowledge than many competing information retrieval systems. There is a place in this world for interfaces optimized for expert use. @dysmento @tobyink there certainly are places for expert interfaces, and no UI is bad or good without anchoring such a judgement to a purpose. A violin is a solidly horrible UI for anyone unfamiliar with it. It is a deeply unintuitive interface. But since a violinβs purpose typically doesnβt include any random novice using it well within 5 minutes, thatβs ok. But it remains an awful music creation interface for a novice.  @davidaugust the problem with this philosophy is many people seem to grab on to any excuse they can find to avoid writing documentation. I'll take a crap UI with documentation over a great UI without any day. Firstly because things will always go wrong in ways the developer never expected, and secondly because the end users have a right to know how the systems they are using actually operate. If you don't properly document your project you take away the user's right to be educated about it. @admin agreed, documentation should not be omitted, but in may applications also should not be necessary for use for the intended users. We have more options than poorly designed UI with documentation or well designed UI without any. Many, if not most, UI will succeed at its goals if well designed _and_ documented. @davidaugust My first #garmin handheld #GPS unit was like that. What you had to do next to navigate with it was so blindingly obvious that I bought it on the spot. @garrattguy thatβs awesome! I love that kind of thing. When something is so immediately useful and usable it can bring a nice joy.  @davidaugust However, explaining it is better than just expecting the user to figure it out on their own. #ux
 @davidaugust recommend reading https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/10/controlling-your-environment-makes-you-happy/ People only think UIs are "friendly" when they are the same as what they are used to. @Geoff yes. Usersβ collective life experiences, or lack there of, impact whether UIs succeed at their aims or not. Good call. @KayT @MindPersephone wow. If these werenβt for use in crisis theyβd be comically bad. Thank you for sharing. Why oh why could they not replace the buttons either with β999β on each button that dials that, or leave them blank (which would surprisingly be less confusing than what they went with). Also, the signs seem designed solely for installers and maintenance people, not core users. π€¦ββοΈ @davidaugust @MindPersephone I must admit it makes me giggle every time I walk past. I agree with you over the signs, the whole installation is badly considered which given the critical nature of it's function is just crazy. Luckily the beach it covers is one of the few places around here which has reliable mobile reception @KayT @MindPersephone ah, makes sense. And another key UX design piece youβve just hit on: multiple systems that overlap in whole or part allowing the same things, in this case falling for assistance. They make great funny examples of cautionary tales. @tuxicoman yes. Exactly right, and once one successfully knows what the knowledge of the target user is, a successful UI will usually not _require_ additional explanation for those users (good documentation would still be a best practice but not required for user to be able to begin using it). @davidaugust please no. It might be catchy but it is completely wrong. Some interfaces have to be explained and it is absolutely ok. @Maker completely wrong? So interfaces that require in depth explains are the only good ones? I think you may find that view unsupported by many real-world design and use processes. @davidaugust (please keep in mind I have been a digital designer for 20+ years, I canβt summarize good design in 2 toots) @davidaugust I do agree not every single element does require prior explanation (although it comes from patterns being learned either directly or via other life experience). An interesting (but not easily digestible) read on the topic is the ISO9241 ;) @Maker good call, and good reference and wink on ISO9241. I think good documentation is vital, whether inline or separate like a manual. I also think most contexts should allow base usability without needing to use documentation. A round door knob is intuitive once one is shown but only if one is not differently limbed. However, a door handle (like pictured) even some animals may be able to figure out with no instruction or example. It is more accessible and typically more usable. @davidaugust βcompletely wrongβ has a double meaning here: @davidaugust At this moment I'm thinking about Blender's GUI ... it's not a joke this UX... it's worst ! π @brunus I havenβt used it myself, but youβre not the first person Iβve heard that from. Iβve a friend training on its use right now, and theyβre finding it not intuitive nor easy to use, even with training. π I wonder if one could overlay a better interface onto it somehow. @mstine good documentation will always be a best practice, as will not _requiring_ documentation use for target users to thrive with an interface. @davidaugust then thereβs a tradeoff line youβre not willing to cross that I am willing to cross  @hazelnot @davidaugust also, there's a while host of machinery and programs in a literal "the person using this must undergo training" context. @hazelnot yes! I feel βThere's a balance between featurefulness and discoverability that can and has to be struck for each individual project.β Could be its own poster. The qualifiers of for a target audience or for those for whom one is primarily designing would clutter the poster pictured, but youβre absolutely right. @davidaugust have you ever seen https://userinyerface.com? it's purposely aggravating @calculsoberic oh my gosh, I hadnβt yet and just interacted for 30 seconds and it is delightfully and engagingly awful. Thank you! Did you make it? @davidaugust I didn't, but I discovered it on masto. I think these folks made it: https://www.bagaar.be/  @davidaugust @musicmatze fair complaint. Best practices include always including good documentation, and sound designs in most cases should be able to be littler through without consulting the documentation they really should include as an option. @chris_e_simpson Iβm sorry. We may have an undocumented tool for defense against it π @eselet all sort of UIs that are unusable without extensive training exist and even some for good reason. An example: layperson likely should not be able to turn on a nuclear power plant without training and assistance.  @davidaugust Isn't that the case for basically anything new that one encounters? Very few things other than doors & handles are that simple. @lispi314 even those are not always. A round door knob is intuitive once one is shown but only if one is not differently limbed. However, a door handle (like pictured) even some animals may be able to figure out with no instruction or example. It is more accessible and typically more usable. @davidaugust That's true. Which is part of why good UI is so hard I think. Even something with as limited a set of features as a door isn't instantly intuitive.  @davidaugust Because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that you can't know... oh, never mind. Is there anymore Fish House Punch? @davidaugust @Signez Makes for a great poster, but totally lacking nuance, therefore actually not true. See plane cockpits, video or music editors. A user-interface-expected-to-be-used-successfully-seconds-after-being-seen-for-the-first-time is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it's not that good. Closer to reality, but not a great poster! "A computer should be like a pencil: Prof. Ben Shneiderman, founding director of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory at the University of Maryland, College Park @davidaugust Most of the time I agree with simplicity. Some of my jobs have taken this view, and I've worked with designers. But... sometimes you need the power, even if it means implementing an in-app tutorial. The difference between Slack or Teams vs simpler messaging systems for instance. There might be a learning curve, but the ability to make threads and edit messages is essential once you know you can. You can go too far in either direction. Featuritis is a thing.  @davidaugust me giving my opinions on the menu at work (our menu is horseshit and whoever designed it needs to be fired)  @davidaugust I disagree. If by "good" you mean easy, intuitive - sure. But categorically excluding powerful, flexible, straightforward is not what I personally want. |
@davidaugust stealing to send to my engineers that make programs with three steps to just open it.