Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Flat UIs hard to navigate, even for youngsters

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 13:36

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-cause-uncertainty/
"On average participants spent 22 per cent more time (i.e. slower task performance) looking at the pages with weak signifiers," the firm notes. Why would that be? Users were looking for clues how to navigate. "The average number of fixations was significantly higher on the weak-signifier versions than the strong-signifier versions. On average, people had 25 per cent more fixations on the pages with weak signifiers."

The firm dispenses with the counter-argument that users were "more engaged" with the page.
Oh yes, not being able to find your way around websites just means you're engaged with it!


https://www.fastcodesign.com/3058094/the-problem-with-flat-design-according-to-a-ux-expert
But her favorite quote comes from a young adult–under 25–talking recently about navigating a flat web design: “I don’t [know what’s a link]. I just start clicking and praying that it works.”

Who would've fucking guessed Windows NT 4.0 is more usable than the modern web?

How much longer do I have to wait until this design bubble finally pops and everyone goes back to traditional UIs?
Even my god damn bank is overhauling it's user interface with flat bullshit.
Fucking kill me.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 14:01

They're good to look at, at least

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 14:02

it's all about the idiotic idea that we should remove all the typical computer GUI/TUI/CLI because the interface should be 'natural'. the thing is: there's no natural way to browse hypertext, configure settings or install a program. handwriting, flipping pages and swiping aren't more or less natural than clicking on checkboxes, scrolling or typing out commands with a keyboard. all those things are conventions, it's just that UX-fags think that conventions related to computers are somehow worse than all the other ones. this is the software equivalent of complaining that your food contains 'chemicals'.

this is one of the big things that dumb down (mainstream) computers. 30 years ago you could teach a non-technical office worker to use relatively complex TUI program with plenty of keyboard shortcuts. now you have """"""""""""technology"""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""journalists"""""""""""""""""""""""" who bitch and moan at anything that has nested menus or more than two buttons.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 15:13

>>3
Nice try, grandpa
Personally I do real work on CLI but I still appreciate GUIs.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 15:20

Original Windows9x-style controls were so much better than the current Windows 10 crap. Why fixing something that isn't broken?

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 15:35

Don't worry, they'll fix it so it's broken even worse.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-20 20:02

The problem are not flat UIs, it's that designers think flat UIs are easier to make. Old designers were salty that the new designers didn't have to spend hours in Photoshop to make a single skeumorphic button, and thus the new designers grew up being told that flat design is easy. The result is that neither put the required amount of effort to make their flat UIs good, and then they blame the design philosophy when their users are confused as to where they should click on their godawful ``web 3.0'' website.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-21 6:36

>>4
but I'm not criticizing the existence of GUIs, I criticize their unreasonable simplification which takes away any sort of user control

Name: Cudder !cXCudderUE 2017-09-21 7:18

>>2
No they're not. They look like they're not done loading, like the GDI handles ran out.

The "real" flat UI is BS_FLAT. That actually looks good and is usable, because the UI elements still have some fucking borders that tell you where they are.

http://forum.swamp.ru/files/flat_508.png

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-21 7:22

>>9
http://forum.swamp.ru/files/flat_508.png
swamp.ru
.ru
Russian commie detected. Go back to Gulag, Ivan!

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-21 19:47

>>9
The "real" flat UI is BS_FLAT. [...] because the UI elements still have some fucking borders that tell you where they are.
Dude what are you smoking? If it has borders it's not really flat

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-22 16:26

>>7
it's that designers think flat UIs are easier to make.
They are easier to make, though

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-28 0:31

Computers are satanic.

They should be destroyed.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-28 3:05

>>13
Ok.

Name: noko 2017-09-28 4:43

it is hard to make ui with css and html and ecmascropt. it is harder to make good website when bossladdy tell me it has to be at the very least 4.3 MB per page not including the advertisements and i go ok. i will use angular, and node, and jquery, and react, and meteor, but not backbroke because it is light, and some polymer, and some knockout, and a lot of mercury to make my web page big and show worthy. but i am hurting. my baby is larger than i am and the diabetes has became metastizied to her brain. why cant it be easy to build web with css and html? html is worse than <<<<<<<<<<<<<<lisp>>>>>>>>>>(sorry you forgot a closing tag here but i will fail gracefully because this is what being graceful is about hiding your imprefections from the common man so he wont know u are bleeding out on his porch because if he sees bad that is ungraceful>>. and css please dont get me started on css. who would think this is a good idea? html styling is ok and i can live with just <p> and <h*> * where this is a number, but i cannot live with the box modal. why do i need to wrap my navigation in an unordered list? why do i need to set invisible widths and silly display settings? why must inline be worthless? why must web not be a 1/2.7 centered <p> and <h> oscillation. why did you make me kill my child

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-28 6:35

>>15
html is worse than <<<<<<<<<<<<<<lisp>>>>>>>>>>
this is because html is bad and lisp is good

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-28 11:52

>>12
Making a good flat UI is not any easier than making a skeumorphic one, because while before that you had to spend time making your buttons look good in photoshop, now you have to employ clever techniques to draw your users' attention to the parts of the UI that matter, and you can do this without resorting to gradient buttons like in the article.

Name: Anonymous 2017-09-28 19:29

make intentionally bad UIs but code them poorly so they are forced to hire you again to redesign them

To code poorly, may I suggest vodka?

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-02 16:18

>>18
Get your intoxicated commie ass outta here, you prole.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-03 5:47

>>3
I read a book recently that articulated basically the same sentiments as yours, except with the environment. Basically, what he purported was that, what if we were to reintroduce all the animals that had become extinct in the last decade, and it actually put the environment in more jeapordy than it already was? Okay, it's a bit extreme, yes, but his point being that it's a very misguided notion that protecting the environment is simply a matter of preventing ourselves from impeding homeostasis. It's hard to believe that there was a point in time when bugs as big as a domestic cat existed. Those same creatures could not survive in our modern day habitat, because our atmosphere has significantly less oxygen in it, and it's been this way for as long as humanity has existed. It's absurd to think that there's some kind of natural state to this giant rock hurdling at insane velocity around an incandescent ball of gas--or, if there is some equilibrium, it most certainly doesn't involve us.
I don't really have a point to this; I just wanted to talk about that book I read, and I don't have any friends in real life. Actually, I'm pretty sure I haven't spoken to another human being in quite literally a month. I guess you could consider that a benefit of working night shift.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-03 6:03

>>17
I don't think that your implication that coordinating certain techniques in order to draw the user's attention as an exclusively superflat thing is really valid. In fact, I think you're looking at it wrong. Superflat is pomo--it's brutalism, utilitarianism, not an alternative to skeumorphism and not simply minimalism. And skeumorphism not only encompasses but, in my opinion, exceeds much of the qualities of superflat, in that what's required to make a superflat design is just as much the kernel of that superflat design as it would be a skeumorphic design. If I can be really, really pedestrian for a moment, what if you were to reconstruct this site, tinychan, visually? Well, you would probably introduce a certain colorset and then the general shape of things, and then you would have a flat UI. You could stop there. Skeumorphism is what happens after that. The most obvious example being the borders that mimic reliefs around each thread but also the tiling brick image of this site's background. Skeumorphism exists in excess of superflat. Superflat should have never been codified, because it's really universal. It's the basis upon which every other design choice prior to that was built on. In the same reductionist sentiment, aren't all illustrations really just glorified geometric shapes of different colors and sizes on a canvas? They are. And it's ultimately those shapes and colors that are really necessary, but they need more form in order to be palatable. They have to have that excess.

Name: Anonymous 2017-10-03 11:53

>>21
Aren't you just talking about layout when you say "superflat"? I think Superflat and Skeumorphism are just two ways to achieve the same effects, but where one mostly relies on color and composition, the other uses resemblance to real objects and physicality. They both should have that excess, but where one is maximum-minimalist, the other is baroque and maximalist. Clearly both of these styles share many techniques, but the way in which some of those are achieved is what differentiates them.
I'm talking about extremes here, but usually what works best is a mix of both.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List