So you can't trust your intuition, you need to listen to users with fresh eyes. But not like that! It's hard because when you spend so much time close to a system, you start to overthink things, and then second-guess yourself. Overall, I would say it's because design is really hard. I can provide more detail later if someone would like, but the short of it is:ġ) As other features changed (permission prompts and moving the growing number of settings to their own screen), one location or the other made more sense.Ģ) I thought I would like the single top switch better than a single FAB, but after using it for a while, I think the switch feels more confusing than fresh (the action bar is a nonstandard location for a switch). Over a period of several years, the location of the toggle has moved from a switch at the top, to a switch and a floating action button (FAB), back to just a switch, and will soon move to just a FAB.
I am the maintainer of Red Moon, a FLOSS screen filter app for Android. Maybe it is just as simple as that metrics individuals are measured on for job performance?
#MOJO MASTER WINAMP PLUGIN ENHANCER SOFTWARE#
Few are optimising code for performance these days though, I'd wager - everyone just assumes your user won't mind your software using 15% of their CPU when sitting idle. In saying that though, rewrites in new languages and frameworks do seem to be becoming the problem for backend - optimisation isn't seem as exciting or career advancing, I guess.
#MOJO MASTER WINAMP PLUGIN ENHANCER DOWNLOAD#
That leads to an ever changing design that tries to optimise for business objectives, rather than what the user wants.īackend code can be optimised and honed and improved with objective measurements (CPU cycles used, latency, perceived performance, download time for user), but design doesn't give these. Lacking objective numerical comparison, perhaps designers and product teams attempt to do metrics-based comparison from telemetry (we raised metric X by changing the design). I do wonder if to some extent the inherently subjective nature of UX/UI design is what keeps it forever going? Designers want to stay employed and not just become a "bring in one-time at the start" contractor, so they justify changes through continual enhancement or similar, assuming the current solution may be one of a few local optima rather than the global optimum. Is there some psychological effect this has on users because it is once again novel? So often we don't see good design improvements but things that just come off as "change because change." Why? Help me understand. Often backend people say that it is just done to justify their existence but I don't buy this because there are plenty of good design features that can be constantly worked on and improved. It is just so common that there has to be some reason for it. But why do things like this happen so often? Changes that don't actually provide any more utility.
So, the big question is: why? Good design is hard and often underappreciated. Removing hintings that people have been relied on. Things that basically your users have been trained to look at and then need to be retrained. Moving a bar that's existed to another location (Spotify). Doing things like changing the clock from right to left (Android). It often appears that design changes are changed just to change. I hope there's some UI/UX designers that can explain this to me.
0 kommentar(er)
