5 ms·
So true. So many designers try to be too clever, and bad UI is the end-result. Non-obvious design is excusable proportional to how-often I'm going to use someth
by hacknat 7y ago
So true. So many designers try to be too clever, and bad UI is the end-result. Non-obvious design is excusable proportional to how-often I'm going to use something AND how many steps it takes away from me. Non-obvious design is really only good when it saves people time, but people will only put up with time-saving UI when they are going to be using a UI often. For example, Spotify's UI is a little counter-intuitive at first, but I use it so frequently that it's okay and I know how it works now.
- gnud 7y agoSpotify are masters at hiding information. The only way to actually see full track names or artist lists is to wait for it to scroll by in the 'currently playing' view - you can't see the full name of the song before you play it. There's no way to see label or release year. There's no way to see a readable version of the cover art. I could go on.
- sushisource 7y agoAgreed. Spotify's UI looks nice. That's pretty much the only nice thing I can say about it. This thread I think highlights the absolute dumpster fire that is the insane design choices they've made: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Linux/adding-an-album-to-the-queue-adds-it-to-the-front-of-the-queue/td-p/2910397 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Linux/adding-an-alb...
- ThalesX 7y agoAs I was reading this wonderful thread on mobile, I got a hilarious popup asking me to rate my experience and scrolling my page all the way to the top. Hilarious! On the plus side, their metrics will show them I now visited the web site two times as I intend to go back and continue reading. That’s engagement for ya! Edit: there was only one reply left :(