Hacker News Reader

Comment by least | Hacker News Reader

Are programmers really UI/UX experts, though? If you said a programmer pointing out how stupid programming is shown in film you might have a point but I really don't think many of these people pointing out their perceived flaws in UI/UX are experts.

In any thread that mentions UI/UX something like this always comes up where someone is bemoaning current UI/UX and hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing.

That isn't to say that laymen can't make arguments with regards to poor UX/UI because it's ultimately a subjective experience and what is intuitive to one person isn't necessarily going to be the same for another. I just think you're conferring expertise to undeserving recipients.

View on HN

> something like this always comes up

Unsurprisingly.

> which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing

On my first job I've used Windows NT 4. Yet I agree with GP Windows 7 was the peak UX.

The comment about it coinciding when they started was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but surprisingly often holds true. My comment more broadly is just pointing out that most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective.

> most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective

On subjects like that, I don't believe objective arguments are even possible. UX is similar to art or politics, it's inherently subjective because it's about people and culture. Ask a caveman to compare UX of Windows 7 and 10, and they gonna tell both are equally useless.

Despite no objective arguments is possible, it might exist a consensus.

> hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing

Nah. I started out with Workbench 1.3, which was flat. Because they literally hadn't the colors available to do more. I didn't use them, but Mac and Atari ST were the same. Then came Workbench 2.0, then MUI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface ), and I recognized and enjoyed the improvements. I love change, I just don't love regression. Why would I?

And as for experts:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-caus...

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/

Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad, which includes the shift from skeuomorphism over to flat design. The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm.

Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change, so those who fully embraced a particular UX paradigm will find it harder and harder to adapt to shifts in UX unless it cycles back to what they're comfortable with (just like fashion).

To quote Abe Simpson,

> "I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!"

> but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad

We're not looking at a box with unknown contents that we would need to go by probabilities. We can just look at the thing.

> The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm.

I can, right now in Win 10, show you plenty examples where there is no contrast and no distinction between an overlay window and what's behind it. Not low contrast, exactly the same color.

> Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change

This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false.

I might as well say "as people age and grow in confidence and experience, they trust their own judgement more, and care less about just going along with whatever is pushed just to fit in" or anything like that.

> This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false.

It's more like someone at some point stops being open to change, which allows some breathing room, but eventually they'll prefer to stick to what they know rather than having to learn something new. This isn't a value judgement, just that when something works and feels right to someone why would they feel the need to try something else just for the sake of trying it?

I use vim. Most people don't and would argue it's bad user experience as it's not intuitive. What's intuitive for text editing is largely just based on convention, though. I think vim is a great user experience because it allows me to edit text much more efficiently. It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out. It took me some time to learn and get comfortable with vim and I don't see much value in going with the new thing even if it potentially has real upsides.

When it comes to UX/UI design, you'll certainly find plenty of conventions that are broadly agreed upon. Most people would find it difficult to read yellow text on a white background for example so that would be considered bad UI. But in the case of GUI design like determining how much shadow there is beneath a 'button' element or what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective and a part of that comes down to convention rather than an innate preference in humans.

> It's more like someone at some point stops being open to change, which allows some breathing room, but eventually they'll prefer to stick to what they know rather than having to learn something new.

That could justify anything that is new. Just take the people who think nuclear would be a bad idea -- "it's just because that's not how they are used to doing things".

What is there to "learn" about, say, 50 pixels of padding rather than 5 pixels of padding and 1 pixel of border? All of these "arguments" are avoiding the actual subject matter at hand to make grand generalizations.

> It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out.

Then speak for yourself, because none of that describes me. I constantly try out new things; some things supersede what I used to that point, others fall short.

> what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective

Not in the case of two colors being the exact same. There is nothing subjective about that at all.

It's the current crop of supposed UI/UX experts though that have foisted this mess of material design, hidden menus, disappearing scroll bars, text fields that don't behave like text fields (ex. browser URL bar) etc. So yes, I do believe many programmers who have to suffer years and decades of UI/UX "advancement" (much of what is actually just design churn) and use computing environments extensively, can definitely have a lot of good input.

They are called "user" interface and "user" experience, after all. Any "user" can call it bad and it can be a valid point. It can also definitely be valuable input. But an engineer identifying a design flaw in a bridge or an English major identifying errors in language use are people that have specifically studied those things and have a depth and breadth of knowledge that most "users" don't. Programmers aren't UI/UX experts just because they use applications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com