Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: A Point of Contention - Modern User Interfaces

Reader Artem Tashkinov writes: Here are the staples of the modern user interface (in varying degree apply to modern web/and most operating systems such as Windows 10, iOS and even Android):
  • Too much white space, huge margins, too little information
  • Text is indistinguishable from controls
  • Text in full-CAPS
  • Certain controls cannot be easily understood (like on/off states for check boxes or elements like tabs)
  • Everything presented in shades of gray or using a severely and artificially limited palette
  • Often awful fonts suitable only for HiDPI devices (Windows 10 modern apps are a prime example)
  • Cannot be controlled by keyboard
  • Very little customizability if any

How would Slashdotters explain the proliferation and existance of such unusable user interfaces and design choices? And also, do you agree?

29 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. Easy answer by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How would Slashdotters explain the proliferation and existance of such unusable user interfaces and design choices?

    Phones and tablets.

    1. Re:Easy answer by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This... People are designing for one medium used one way. All of the large data workers I know (Programmers, accountants, graphics designers, architects...) HATE these new UIs and use Windows 7 / Gnome 2 style interfaces. (And often have dual monitors) I suspect it will not be long before things start to shift back...

    2. Re:Easy answer by big-giant-head · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo we have a winner .. At work if we have a choice the developers use Linux and the customize the UI the way they want it... Usually a Gnome 2 , a KDE ( like windows with the menu and apps pinned to the bottom) or similar interface. I realize all the hipsters think this minimalist ui with a very small, dull color palette is cool, but it isn't. It's very limiting and very boring and 99% of the users are not hipsters ... so we are not impressed ..

      Make UI's Great Again !!!!

      --

      So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    3. Re:Easy answer by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think part of the problem is that the basic screen shape has changed. Traditionally, monitors used a 4:3 format that worked reasonably well for most sites and the resolution was low enough that letters had to be sizable so as not to be unreadable. However, we moved to the 16:9 format for most monitors which adds horizontal space, often at the expense of vertical space which is utterly useless for most things beyond watching movies filmed in a 16:9 format.

      Studies that were done over 100 years ago found that the best line-length for human reading was around 4 inches at most. The extra width that modern screens provide don't give much benefit, but at least with a tablet it's much easier to adjust to a portrait mode where the added vertical space means less scrolling. Otherwise there isn't a lot of useful things to do with a UI other than add more tool pallets, but for a non-professional tool, its typically better to avoid throwing too much at users so we've got all this extra space that provides no benefit. So websites fill the void by throwing in a side column of ads, but that's worse than just empty space as far as I'm concerned.

      The touch model of phones and tablets as makes it more complicated to have a universal UI. Web pages with context menus or anything that interacts with a mouse hover are horribly clunky on touch screens, and optimizing for different platforms is often time consuming or doesn't even make business sense depending on how much traffic you get from different platforms. The same goes for applications that could be run on either a tablet or a PC as the interaction models are different enough that trying a one-size fits all approach often degrades the experience for both users. Using an application with bigger buttons that are necessary for touch targets with a mouse and keyboard just feels like the UI has wasted a lot space and trying to touch small targets designed for mouse use can be exceptionally frustrating.

    4. Re:Easy answer by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agree.

      Over the past year I've (for the first time) used Mac OS X on my laptop, I find it much less useful, and frankly much less user friendly, than Gnome 3 (and even Gnome 3 hides too much information because it assumes its users are technophobes).

      One can understand Microsoft and Apple designing user interfaces primarily for technophobes, because in the modern world the majority of their users are people for whom the full power of a computer system is too complex for them to understand, much less use; and, seeing that they have in effect a duopoly, the fact that their more technically able users are not well served by their user interfaces doesn't matter, because there aren't enough of us to be a significant market, and most of us will be told what to use at work in any case.

      But I really don't understand the Gnome designers' reasons for hiding so much, for making even moderately technical things so awkward. In practice, almost everyone who chooses to use Gnome is a geek. Having said that, if it really annoyed me I could either switch to something else or get under the hood and modify it, and I don't.

      For me, Gnome 3 works with niggles. MacOs X is really annoying, but I can use it. Windows 7 is tolerable. Windows 10? Just let's not go there.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    5. Re:Easy answer by RoverDaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't specific to iOS, but there's this 'modern UX' Philosophy that functions should be completely hidden until needed, which does seem to develop from a 'mobile first' attitude. One example: I've been baffled on how to delete entries from a list, because there's no edit mode for the list, and even if there is, still no 'affordance' to suggest this is what you click to delete. Why? Because 'delete' is obviously a swipe left or right (depending on the app). Then and only then do you get to see a nice big red 'DELETE' box. The user should just 'know'. Similar to how Windows 8 introduced those awful 'hot corners' that made charm controls spring up if you left your mouse (or touch) there. But of course this isn't universal. The iOS Podcasts app uses an edit mode for lists and check boxes that look like radio buttons (another minor gripe) to indicate which items in a list should be deleted.

      A couple decades ago there seemed to be a much more rational UX philosophy where controls were obviously controls, text was obviously text, window frames and borders were -good- things because they help the user's mental model of the UI match the software, and on-screen affordances were designed to give the user a clue as to what does what. We've gone backwards.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    6. Re:Easy answer by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To properly build two interfaces requires way too much effort. It is much easier if you stop trying to make all things for all people for every device. The solution is much simpler than convoluted designs.

      Three parts to every design, separated from each other part: 1) Content, 2)Design, 3)Structure

      Content: The actual bits that matter. Articles, pictures, code snips whatever it is that "counts".

      Design: The flowery bits that distinguish content from other content. Fonts, Styles, Artwork and Logos. These are the bits the identify the content brand.

      Structure: This is how the content and design bits are displayed. Two Columns or Three. Header above, in the middle, or below. Left / right. "Layout"

      If you break up the UI into these three aspects, it becomes much easier to modify / replace / customize. You can skin the layout to make it look unique, you can adjust the structure to work better for different work flows (Small, Medium, Large screens; Programmers vs Graphic Designers)

      The problem is, we have people trying to shoehorn Touch Interfaces on desktops that don't need touch. You have people trying to make something look good on small screens, but on large screens gives way too much "white space" or ending up looking "cluttered".

      The reality is, that everyone's needs are different, and the whole "one size fits all" thing doesn't work for everyone. And you end up making very few really happy in the process.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Easy answer by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It all started with the "Ribbon Interface" on the MS products....

      It all went to hell from there...

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Easy answer by steveha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IBM had "Common User Access" (CUA), and Microsoft had "Consistent User Interface" (CUI) guidelines, which were roughly comparable to Apple's.

      IBM's standard could only have come from IBM. Save was F12, Save As was Shift+F12, and Print was (IIRC) Ctrl+Shift+F12. Cut/Copy/Paste? Shift+Del/Ctrl+Insert/Shift+Insert. Arrgh.

      When Microsoft was trying to be a corporate partner of IBM, they followed the above standard for a while... and then they rebelled and implemented Ctrl+S for Save, Ctrl+P for Print, and Ctrl+X/Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V for Cut/Copy/Paste. And left the CUA ones working because why not. I haven't checked but I imagine the CUA ones still work today; it's not like the UI designers are falling all over themselves wanting to use Ctrl+Shift+F12 or Shift+Del for anything.

      In the world of UIs today, there's way too much frosting and not nearly enough cake.

      I agree completely.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    9. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, but I actually agree with this. I still hate the ribbon. A menu is a reasonably nicely categorised index of functionality - easy to read, properly aligned text, room for descriptiveness as required, sub-categories where appropriate (but highlighted in a consistent manner), and it has hints like underlines for keyboard shortcuts. And when not in use it neatly vanishes. The ribbon takes the menu, hurls it across the screen with a bunch of apparently random icons with no thought to readability, alignment, sorting or descriptiveness, actively hides some information in a non-standard way, and thoroughly confuses the distinction between a toolbar (a small set of tools kept visible for ease of access) and a menu.

      I really, really wish the ribbon would just go away.

  2. White space by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On web pages, at least, the excessive white space is an obnoxious side-effect of current "responsive design" practices.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:White space by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its expensive to create 3 different interfaces

      Then don't. That is foolish yet is common among people who wrongly believe they have control over how a web page looks.

      One premise of the markup language was that all rendering would be agnostic of the display. It was not meant to be, and should not be treated as, a pixel-perfect display.

      Yet that is exactly what most "responsive" systems are trying to do. Enormous amounts of calculations to figure out how to precisely organize the display, doing the most processing on the mobile devices least capable of doing it.

      Web designers need to let go of their fascination with precisely scripted layouts. Let the browse handle it. If the browser is a 480x640 phone or a 7680x4320 ultra high density monitor, designers should allow the web browser to do what it was designed for rather than going through enormous hurdles to force it to the web designer's vision -- which is usually limited to a 1024x768 or 1280x720 design.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:White space by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Responsive" doesn't mean take a design and make it work on all devices, it means

      Unfortunately that IS what the term currently means among that group. Generally they (wrongly) believe they control all aspects of the web page display, that all devices are equally powerful and can run an unbounded amount of scripting, they often see no difference between a picture of text versus actual text, and don't bother to learn anything about the media they are designing for.

      Aside: More than once I've had to convince a web designer that their pictures of text were the biggest reasons things weren't showing up to search engines, they kept claiming the hidden meta tags, text recognition, and image search would handle all that. Frighteningly some were never convinced, even after showing them with Google's own tools how Google interpreted their pages. Some were absolutely convinced that Google reads all text on all images and indexes pages based on image content. They could not fathom how there was a difference between text and fancy-rendered images of text.

      Many wrongly assume the web browser displays the same thing on all screens, no matter what. Often they design for a few patterns they think are common, 1024x768 or 1080p, and try to force it on everyone else.

      Got a Super HD display showing 7680x4320? Too bad, we'll just upscale the fonts and add some whitespace.

      Got an old smartphone with a 480x640 portrait screen? We'll downscale and do an ENORMOUS amount of JavaScript processing on these devices least suited for the processing.

      It seems these are the same designers with the first-world problems of their disposable $800 smart phone is more than 18 months old, and their $2000 macbook is more than three years old and ready for replacement.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  3. How would Slashdotters explain the proliferation? by deathcloset · · Score: 3, Insightful
  4. Hate flat GUIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, I cannot stand this push to flat GUIs. Give me a button that looks like a button, that way I know I can push it.

    heh, captch: condemns

  5. Rebellion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    New generations always rebel against the ways of the previous generation. It's human nature.

    During the Renaissance we had visually brilliant works of art created. Later generations shunned this and decided that a canvas painted a solid color had just as much merit. Which is "right"? Neither. They just are.

    And so it goes for UI design. From my perspective, we had a very consistent standard for UIs for a good 20 or so years. This was in part driven by technological limitations, but it worked well. The barriers are gone now, anything can be done. Therefore anything will be done. I've actually worked with people who are "UX Specialists" and completely disagreed with what they thought was intuitive. I also regularly have to look up how to do things on modern gadgets because they don't include manuals anymore and they most certainly are NOT intuitive. To me. I'm probably just old. And so is the submitter. :-)

    1. Re:Rebellion by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      During the Renaissance we had visually brilliant works of art created. Later generations shunned this and decided that a canvas painted a solid color had just as much merit. Which is "right"? Neither.

      No, Raphael's works have much more merit than a canvas painted in solid color. That isn't even a question. The canvas painted in solid color can be interesting, but it's on a lower level.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Modern Software by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd extrapolate this to modern software in general. It seems acceptable now to leave things broken, unsupported and undocumented so that six months after purchase or download things no longer work and can't be fixed. I appreciate things become more complex over time but the number of boneheaded things I see on a day-to-day basis is extraordinary.

    Oh. And get off my lawn...

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  7. No only by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its arrogant designers who think they know better than the generation before, want to be seen to be different and "edgy" and "new" and so chuck out all the lessons learned and fuck things up royally. So we end up with an OS in 2017 that looks more primitive than Win3.0.

  8. Forgot Some... by BrendaEM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hate:
    White text on a bight yellow background, on Galaxy Note 3 Android.
    Where the fuck have the icons gone? Windows.
    Why can't I cut an paste information from your dialog.
    Why are things still not resolution independent. Adobe, and most music production applications.
    Don't think you need files and folders? Think again, and the includes you Firefox mobile bookmarks.

    The creator of "material design" need to be shot. There's a difference between not being limited by the physical world, and needlessly disconnect us from what we have already learned.

    In the battle between KDE, Gnome, and Unity, Cinnamon won.

    Love:
    Rounded corners rule!
    Shadows show us what's on top!

    Maxims:
    Just because Apple did it, doesn't make it right. Remember, they had a bad year last year.
    People need to work, more than you need to masturbate over your own art work.
    Most serious file management takes place in two windows.
    Clean means that you are too lazy to update the functionality in your program, so you are leaving useful stuff off.
    Those who think that the command line and a GUI cannot coexist have never seen a 3D CAD or design program.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Forgot Some... by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot a maxim:

      Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad, and just because it's new doesn't mean it's better.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  9. Re:children and old people by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're right about people's motor and vision skills are not what they used to be, but I find that primarily to be because it's not the same people.
    Things have been dumbed down for about a decade now, and young users expect things to be simplified, not having experience with anything else.

    40-70 year olds have computer experience, and handle cascading menus, middle mouse buttons and overlapping windows just fine - it's the young generation that requires a single application on the screen with simplified controls. And not too many words they have to read.

    tl;dr: It's dumbing down for a dumber generation.

  10. This is what happens when art drives UIs by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and every idiot in the world thinks he's an artist.

    People associate lots of white space with "modern" and "clean", but in fact the key is to use white space intelligently to help guide the user's attention. The question isn't whether you have a lot or a little, the question is how much mental work does it take for a user to accomplish his task?

    It's easy to ape interfaces that work well, but that's cargo-cult design. Design should be as much evidence-driven as it is fashion-driven. First (design) principles are only a starting point.

    Recently I was using a smart TV app and when the content I requested took too long to buffer I decided to quit the app. I was presented with a dialog warning me that I was leaving the app, and asking me whether I wanted to "cancel" or "continue". This gave me a moment's pause, because I didn't want to "continue" waiting for the content to load. However as a developer myself I understood the programmer's mindset: "cancel" and "continue" referred to the event the dialog was responding to: a request to exit the app.

    This division of responsibilities is backwards: the user shouldn't have to get into the mind of the designer, the designer needs to get into the mind of the user. And that's hard. UI guidelines help, but there's no substitute for watching actual users struggle with your design. Any time you find something that makes them pause, even for a moment, you should file that bump down. That'd catch problems like confusion between text and controls, or inscrutable state widgets.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Oh lord, the pain by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of this is web design (I use the word "design" very loosely) and some is application design:

    o the "designer" mindset has gifted us with extreme low contrast backdrops and fonts - STOP THAT

    o bloody pop-up/over dialogs that were not asked for are constantly used - THIS IS HOW TO MAKE ME GO AWAY

    o menus drop without being requested because mouse went over them - WAIT FOR A BLOODY CLICK!

    o Videos autoplay just because I've arrived, or because the mouse pointer went over them. Ever think *I* might want to control what damned noise comes out of my computer, or what data I want to stream on my phone? You should. Because while I'm desperately trying to figure out how to shut up / stop your video abortion, I am hating on you and everything you represent, and vowing to NEVER come back to your site, which I promptly implement via my hosts file because you SUCK.

    o Do NOT change the web or application UI: NEVER make a modal UI. Present a consistent interface that can be learned and incorporated into muscle memory. Enable/disable elements as appropriate. IOW, if a document isn't NEW or Loaded, Save should be disabled - not GONE. This is so everything in the interface remains where it was. We want to work, not read your damn interface over and over and over and over just to see where we're at.

    o Make ALL keyboard commands configurable. In some apps, some of the things I do most often have no shortcuts and no way to add one. How annoying. How stupid.

    I swear, there are days when I'd like to hunt down these so-called "designers" and yell at them until my voice gave out.

    All of the above is effete nonsense that designers engage in an attempt (which is actually abject failure) to justify their title; stop all that, and just do it right. Don't even try to be "fancy" unless you're writing a game.

    Also, if you say "UX", I just want you to know you've made me work to suppress an urge to slap your face. Hard.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oh lord, the pain by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Certainly doesn't stop them from transparently redirecting 2 times so that when you hit the back button, you are just going back to the redirect page which then puts you back into the page you were trying to leave. You have to either hit back 2 (or sometimes even more) times very quickly, or right click on the back button and choose the page you want to go back to. It's almost as annoying as not being able to hit back at all.

      This, by the way, is also a side effect of SSO where you are redirected through the authentication system before arriving at the page. It's pretty aggravating.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Oh lord, the pain by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but they are UX, I don't know what you have against calling it that, because UI is how it looks (and in UI the look is functional yes). Behaviour such as popups auto opening as soon as you open a page are clearly UX because it is nothing to do with the design of how it looks and everything about how it behaves.

      Nonsense. It's all UI. A command line is a UI. My car's steering wheels and pedals are a UI. A remote control is a UI. A UI where things slide around and hide themselves and whatnot is all UI. I'm the user. It's the interface.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Non-Discoverable Interfaces by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For me, the #1 modern UI sin, which wasn't included in the list here -- Non-discoverable interfaces. Interfaces based on some "gesture" which is never explained, and for which one cannot find an explanation (unless you already know the gesture to get there, if it exists). Pinch-zoom, hover in a magic corner, drag from edge, press screen for short vs. long time, invisible menu bars, etc., etc. In the 1984-2010 era I could follow the words in the menus and discover new features in any piece of software (and so could anyone, assuming they weren't illiterate). The last few years have brought my first experiences with software that I just couldn't begin to figure out how to do anything with.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  13. Re:It's the "Me too!" approach to UI design by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take Facebook's "infinitely scrolling" page design for example

    I'd like to take it and throw it off a mountain somewhere. Uses *tons* more memory than a paged layout, and makes it damn near impossible to find anything that's more than a few hours old without scrolling your hand off.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  14. Not just "mobile first", but lazy/cheap web devs by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Mobile first" is partly to blame, but lazy/cheap teams are more so.

    Take a look at what's popular in trendy web app design today: flat everything, big rectangular colour blocks, lines and rounded corners, text. Look at the boxy, side-by-side layouts, almost invariably collapsing into increasingly linear formats for narrower screens until it's just a single column.

    Now look at what you can do easily and portably with CSS. In particular, look at what you can achieve by just slapping Bootstrap or the like on your site, without spending much time or money considering the design and layout, and certainly without hiring any sort of designer or, $DEITY forbid, a digital artist to create custom graphics that fit the style of your product/service and build any sort of distinctive branding.

    There was, at the time, some justification for this in that downloading lots of large images on the mobile networks of a few years ago really could significantly slow down loading a page, with resulting poor user experience and app/site performance. But for most of us, our target markets are on faster networks today, and CDNs are much more developed now as well. And certainly you don't get any allowance for this if your site includes megabytes of JS frameworks, ad content, or auto-playing hero video.

    Likewise, there is some justification for minimal UI chrome on small screen devices where every pixel is precious, but you don't get any allowance for this if you replace a simple hairline with half an inch of whitespace because your visual style is so generic and unguided that the user can't actually tell how the UI works otherwise.

    Frankly, Microsoft, Google and Apple are amateurs when it comes to nerfing design by being flat and bland. Web developers have been moving in this direction for at least as long as smartphones and tablets have been around, and people with actual UI design skills have been criticising them and pointing out the obvious and horrible usability flaws for just as long.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.