I will use this large post to explain to users (and those who've only just joined the forum less than a year ago but apparently believe that intentionally antagonizing other users is, for some unknown reason, warranted in an otherwise friendly discussion) that just because an article, or for that matter "ground-breaking research", states something, that does not make it the final word. Research changes constantly. What's right today may be wrong tomorrow. You are encouraged to express your POV in a
civilised manner and have every right to disagree with hings your read.
Quote: "I will use this small post to emphasize to any future (and current) readers and commenters, that they should actually read the article linked in the OP, before commenting."
Funny thing is I did have a brief look over the article. I just happened to disagree with it but I did not feel the need to start "ripping into it" so I put my point across in a more amicable and conversational manner.
I could rip into it if I wanted. Here, I just pulled some things I disagree with (some of many):
Quote: "Consistency” is a popular word used among designers."
Because users want that; consistency. The target platform in this case is user-oriented.
Quote: "What’s the benefit of following a design convention, if one doesn’t know why that convention exists?"
What's the use of going against an existing convention simply because you do not know why it exists? Indeed an examination of the entire situation from both points of view is required simply as the foundation. Furthermore, examination of the user's "comfort zone" must be considered, even if that comfort zone is not "optimized" for them.
Quote: "How does one even know if a certain platform convention is right for users in the first place?"
Users, being varied in the way they function, are different. This type of question is about as logical as saying "How does one know what is best for life forms". Their is no magic singular answer.
Quote: "What if a certain design convention is harmful to users? Should designers blindly follow it for the sake of consistency?"
What if inconsistency is more harmful? What if inconsistency alienates users? Are we creating a product tailored to the latest trends among developers or tailored to make the user's experience satisfactory?
Quote: "Should bad design practices and lack of design understanding persist because designers want to resort to platform design consistency as the answer to every problem?"
In most cases no, in the case of button-placement, yes. It is annoying to have to think "now this button says..." rather than instinctively knowing. Pragmatism.
What is ludicrous in this image is the idea that the user would follow this path of reading Okay, Cancel, Okay.
Old Users:
If it is a confirmation, the user will only read "ok" and then press it because "Yes, I want to scramble those eggs". In the event that User has a change of heart, User would instinctively jump straight to looking at button 2 and have no reason to look back,
unless there was suddenly an OK where it shouldn't be.
New Users:
Now if we talk new users, we can say that User will read left-to-right (since our target market is western). So User sees OK and need not look any further. Why would User need to?
If User had a change of heart, User would look at OK and think "oh, no" and immediately move to the next option; Cancel. Well Cancel it then.
In short: There will likely never be a scenario where the user makes 3 shifts.
Quote: "...but you cannot ignore the fact that users will look at all of their options before they choose which action to take..."
I've never known somebody to continue searching for their car keys after finding them, hence the phrase "the last place you look".
I could go on... The persons involved could go on... These types of discussion are constructive provided they remain friendly. Unfortunately there are always those that feel the need to get venomous.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion but there is everything wrong with expressing it in an offensive manner (that is rudeness towards or intentional antagonizing of somebody else, directly or through childish innuendos that do nothing other than make the person posting them look the child they are <--- see, I can do it too. It doesn't make me special and doesn't win me respect).
Seriously, if you act like a donkey, people will treat you like a donkey. This is not an limb-measuring contest it is about expression of ideas. I do not for one moment actually assert that my views are right because they are only right in my perception of the world just as opposing ideas are right in the minds of those to whom they belong.
But I am willing to concede that my ideas are not the be all and end all and I am willing to express myself without intentionally trying to antagonize others (given they did nothing to antagonize me first).
Now it's late and I'm tired and I'm busy with real-life problems so I'll excuse myself this even and hope that when I check my emails tomorrow I do not find some other childish remark (not that it's likely I'll bother to reply, but still).
And here is a tiny graphic of a lightbulb:
And here is another:
Disclaimer: The lightbulb does not imply any political ties between myself and the Electricity Empire.
"Quotes in signatures are just stupid, especially if you're quoting yourself" ~ me
