988
This is painfully true (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

And no, I will not tell you what my company app is.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would argue that the first two require you to jump through hoops for edge cases, while the last one requires you to jump through hoops for every case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that's impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're right, but:

    I beginner friendly UX is a safer bet. Besides, if a user has to manually enter all those fields (assuming it continues off screen) then that's a job for a machine, not a human. Large data input jobs are dehumanizing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Unless you've actually done the user research, you have no idea if a "beginner friendly UX is a safer bet" . It's just a guess. Sometimes it's a good guess. Sometimes it's not. The correct answer is always "it depends".

    Hell, whether or not a form full of fields is or isn't "beginner" friendly is even debatable given the world "beginner" is context-specific. Without knowing who that user is, their background, their training, and the work context, you have no way of knowing for sure. You just have a bunch of assumptions you're making.

    As for the rest, human data entry that cannot be automated is incredibly common, regardless of your personal feelings about it. If you've walked into a government office, healthcare setting, legal setting, etc, and had someone ask you a bunch of questions, you might be surprised to hear that the odds are very good that human was punching your answers into a computer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

    And yes, if you definite "beginner" to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that "beginner". What a strange way to define "beginner" though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    There are more beginners then there are experts, so in the absence of research a beginner UI is a safer bet.

    If you're in the business of creating high quality UX, and you're building a UI without even the most basic research--understanding your target user--you've already failed.

    And yes, if you definite "beginner" to be someone with expert training and experience, then yes an expert UI would be better for that "beginner". What a strange way to define "beginner" though.

    If I'm building a product that's targeting software developers, a "beginner" has a very different definition than if I'm targeting grade school children, and the UX considerations will be vastly different.

    This is, like, first principles of product development stuff, here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Right, but clearly this is a funny post using hyperbole. These aren't real UIs. They're comical exaggerations, and likewise we're making generalizations based on them.

    Nobody actually makes UIs like this, but they're springboards for talking about actual problems.

    This isn't a case of "well actually the last example was well researched and the others weren't".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent