Why is website design so awful today, generally?

[cyb3rdud3]

"impossible to navigate" ?
What are you trying to do - and how ?
(.....and why "awful" ?)

I've just loaded Hoist onto my wife's Samsung / Android tablet.
Everything works fine ... (even with my zombie fingers...)

Each of the top olive Menu tabs work.: Products, Photo Gallery, Contact
Even better, upon clicking, each drop-down stays in view, (none of this "hover" nonsense !) ....
....so plenty of time to select a sub-page....
And every page I tried appeared quickly.

The "search" worked tolerably well.
"shiplap" brought up shiplap.
But "Apex" brought nothing ....because they haven't categorised any sheds that way.

One "fault".... the Photos under "Fuel" were squashed.....
....but that isn't a navigation problem.

Hoist is a site that works well on a Tablet.....

...unlike:>>
https://www.skinners-sheds.com
...which is now a scroll-heavy monster ...with an over-sized "hero" intro - worse as an auto-carousel.....
...with pre-school flat, coloured slabs for links - lacking the detail and (relative) sophistication of its predecessor design.


This one:
https://weatherleyfencing.co.uk
....looks a bit better than Skinners - but still makes more work for the Visitor with unnecessary scrolling past over-sized photos and panels.....
....esp. the pointlessly large black panel "Our Happy Clients".

Selecting "Products" and it becomes obvious that this re-design has been "optimised for mobile" - at the expense of Desktop Users.

On desktop, each product line fills the page width - wasting space....
...only saved by each product line being bordered ...something which the minimalist designers would prefer removed as "unnecessary clutter"

While the "journey" is less than ideal, each destination (product) page is good.
Plenty of content in one view. i.e. not overly high spacing for each line.
Spolit slightly by borders betwee sub-products being feint.


Finally, another site "optimised for mobile" which, unlike Hoist ( where every main feature is within one view on the Home page ) is another scroll heavy monster.
https://www.selhursttimber.com
Thankfully lacking the infantile slabs of Skinners - but the Menu bar lacks distinguishing borders - and their Menu choices seem curious and few.

Scroll down to the white panel - and on the right is a sort of "contents" list - but nothing clickable.

Further down and we get a random selection of oversized panels, photos 3 abreast ( most of dubious value : ends of planks ? copper tubes ?)
Maybe its me....but would a "table" with columns be easier to assimilate ??
More importantly, tabulated, most of these products could be seen in one view - i.e. without scrolling.
Much less work on Hoist !

If people want a different experience on mobile --- why f*ck it up for Desktop users....
.....but has anyone asked whether people want less functionality and content on mobile ???

As according to one Web Design website:
"85% of adults think that a company’s website when viewed on a mobile device should be as good or better than its desktop website."
So there really is no excuse for dumbing down with "mobile first optimisation" .

I provided a screenshot of what I see. Yet somehow you seem to totally ignore that and just go off on some unrelated rant.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You should investigate the difference between display areas and touch targets. Just add it to the list of things you should look up We'll lump it in with Parallax, UiX, Responsive Design, Mobile First and the rest of the terms used incorrectly with such authority in this thread.

It’s rather remarkable indeed. But even worse is the disdain on display to the fellow human beings who are lesser abled.

 

[Akrapovic]

Agreed. Before we were talking down everyone who doesn't do "real work". Now we've moved onto how "street smart" people are, and that is "ridiculous" that laws require those with disabilities not to become second class citizens.

In this thread: People that google medical conditions and then try and tell doctors what they have.

 

[Tozovac]

Agreed. Before we were talking down everyone who doesn't do "real work". Now we've moved onto how "street smart" people are, and that is "ridiculous" that laws require those with disabilities not to become second class citizens.

In this thread: People that google medical conditions and then try and tell doctors what they have.

Since I introduced the street-smart comment, I’d appreciate if you clarify in this thread that I did not call accomodation laws or considerations to be ridiculous. One could read that as such here, and as thread-starter, I want it to be clear that I did not make that statement or express that sentiment. Please do so, and soon, and clearly. Thank you very much.

I think few or none feel that meeting accommodation laws/considerations is the reason for what many feel to be a lower-class web/app/mobile/desktop interface experience, be it mobile or larger-screen. My biggest issues/gripes/critiques with much of today’s trends in apps/sites come from personal decisions made for the entire web site / app / interface.

Also, apparently @Akrapovic you very clearly missed my point. The streetsmart comment had nothing to do with insulting or complimenting the type who agrees or disagrees with a certain viewpoint. I was clearly stating that too much of one thing with no regard for compromise (or no thoughts to exploit available advantages) can result in a less than desirable outcome for everyone. All streetsmarts and zero book smarts = bad. All book smarts and zero street smarts = bad. For that matter, relegating certain interface aspects designed for a mobile phone onto 30” desktop screen can = bad.

Let’s please admit, at one time when iPhones/mobile was new, the experience generally followed the desktop experience. Safari on the iPhone required a lot of pinch/zooming....but generally, web/app/mobile interfaces followed certain decades-honed rules that changed slowly over time and worked rather well. And here comes a powerful iPhone whose screen remained small but gained pixel resolution over the years...but was still a completely different animal than a larger-screen lap/desktop. Then the desire from the louder folk amongst the masses for something new and shiny came just in time for minimalist hardware Jony’s rise to software power (and freedom from Steve’s oversight restraint) and willingness to virtually completely discard the current way of doing things with major and minor twists on every facet of the iOS experience to meet *his* vision that was tamped down during the Scott F era, for better or worse. Then, in a perfect storm, as the worlds’ companies’ various Marketing departments saw the sharp increase in mobile users, there came a complete flip-flopping of priorities: soon, new and fresh/different web/app interfaces tailored to small mobile screens of various sizes became the priority, and the advantages afforded by a larger screen and mouse interface were left to adapt to the new normal. If I could afford the right attorney, I’d argue how facets of flat design + responsive design + light grey text + buttonless buttons + hiding tools under icons on a desktop (and mobile) experience are certain accommodation violations.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Since I introduced the street-smart comment, I’d appreciate if you clarify in this thread that I did not call accomodation laws or considerations to be ridiculous. One could read that as such here, and as thread-starter, I want it to be clear that I did not make that statement. Please do so, and soon, and clearly. Thank you very much.

I think few or none feel that meeting accommodation laws/considerations is the reason for what many feel to be a lower-class web/app/mobile/desktop interface experience, be it mobile or larger-screen. My biggest issues/gripes/critiques with much of today’s trends in apps/sites come from personal decisions made for the entire web site / app / interface.

Let’s please admit, at one time when iPhones/mobile was new, the experience generally followed the desktop experience. Safari on the iPhone required a lot of pinch/zooming....but generally, web/app/mobile interfaces followed certain decades-honed rules that changed slowly over time and worked rather well. The iPhone didn’t even need a manual, as the saying goes. Then the desire from the louder folk amongst the masses for something new and shiny came just in time for minimalist hardware Jony’s rise to software power (and freedom from Steve’s oversight restraint) and willingness to virtually completely discard the current way of doing things with major and minor twists on every facet of the iOS experience to meet *his* vision that was tamped down during the Scott F era, for better or worse. Then, in a perfect storm, as the worlds’ companies’ various Marketing departments saw the sharp increase in mobile users, there came a complete flip-flopping of priorities: soon, new and fresh/different web/app interfaces tailored to small mobile screens of various sizes became the priority, and the advantages afforded by a larger screen and mouse interface were left to adapt to the new normal. If I could afford the right attorney, I’d argue how facets of flat design + responsive design + light grey text + buttonless buttons + hiding tools under icons on a desktop (and mobile) experience are certain accommodation violations.

Groundhog Day. Enjoy living in the past.

 

[Akrapovic]

Since I introduced the street-smart comment, I’d appreciate if you clarify in this thread that I did not call accomodation laws or considerations to be ridiculous. One could read that as such here, and as thread-starter, I want it to be clear that I did not make that statement. Please do so, and soon, and clearly. Thank you very much.

I didn't say you made that comment. But you didn't continually refer to yourself and others who agree with you as "street smart" whilst others were simply "book smart". In reality, I'm talking about the site being accessible to those with disabilities in the same way engineers and architects make buildings accessible to those in wheel chairs. That isn't about being book smart - that's about being a good designer.

Let’s please admit, at one time when iPhones/mobile was new, the experience generally followed the desktop experience. Safari on the iPhone required a lot of pinch/zooming....but generally, web/app/mobile interfaces followed certain decades-honed rules that changed slowly over time and worked rather well. The iPhone didn’t even need a manual, as the saying goes. Then the desire from the louder folk amongst the masses for something new and shiny came just in time for minimalist hardware Jony’s rise to software power (and freedom from Steve’s oversight restraint) and willingness to virtually completely discard the current way of doing things with major and minor twists on every facet of the iOS experience to meet *his* vision that was tamped down during the Scott F era, for better or worse. Then, in a perfect storm, as the worlds’ companies’ various Marketing departments saw the sharp increase in mobile users, there came a complete flip-flopping of priorities: soon, new and fresh/different web/app interfaces tailored to small mobile screens of various sizes became the priority, and the advantages afforded by a larger screen and mouse interface were left to adapt to the new normal. If I could afford the right attorney, I’d argue how facets of flat design + responsive design + light grey text + buttonless buttons + hiding tools under icons on a desktop (and mobile) experience are certain accommodation violations.

To be blunt - there's a remarkable amount of words here for something which doesn't say anything.

This thread is disappointing as it could be an opportunity for people to learn why things are. Instead we're told we don't do real work because we use phones (I'm a freaking software developer for christ sake) and that the stats which say mobile phones are popular are wrong. Every time a new technological phrase is introduced, people aren't interested in actually understanding what it means - they just want to use words. The entire industry is wrong. Because people who don't know what UIs are say so. It's absolutely mind blowing.

 

[Tozovac]

This thread is disappointing as it could be an opportunity for people to learn why things are.

You just don’t get it. You’re invited to bow out and stop posting, nobody’s holding your hand back. Not because I feel you don’t have something to offer or because I want you to pipe down, but rather, because you just don’t accept that many dislike “how things are” regardless of whether or not the rationale is absorbed and understood. And no matter how hard you might try to support, many facets of “how things are” (That folk like me dislike) couldn’t possibly be from other than a personal choice made by one or two powerful leaders who all the design lemmings follow. If you don’t accept my invite to just leave and stop posting, then here’s one easy one. Light grey/brown text on a stark white background. How is this accommodating? How is this functionally better than darker black on white, especially on iPhones/iPads that are notoriously awfully hard to read in the sun? 1, 2, 3 go, let’s hear it. Or just go. I don’t care either way.

 

[Tozovac]

Groundhog Day. Enjoy living in the past.

I’m slowly enjoying each day more as today’s designers at Apple keep slowly undoing much of Jony’s minimalist reinventions with each iOS update, and making the unclear more clear. I won’t hide, though, from the fact that I dread the upcoming iOS’d OS. That’s another speed bump I’m not looking forward to one bit.

 

[Akrapovic]

You just don’t get it. You’re invited to bow out and stop posting, nobody’s holding your hand back. Not because I feel you don’t have something to offer or because I want you to pipe down, but rather, because you just don’t accept that many dislike “how things are” regardless of whether or not the rationale is absorbed and understood. And no matter how hard you might try to support, many facets of “how things are” (That folk like me dislike) couldn’t possibly be from other than a personal choice made by one or two powerful leaders who all the design lemmings follow. If you don’t accept my invite to just leave and stop posting, then here’s one easy one. Light grey/brown text on a stark white background. How is this accommodating? How is this functionally better than darker black on white, especially on iPhones/iPads that are notoriously awfully hard to read in the sun? 1, 2, 3 go, let’s hear it. Or just go. I don’t care either way.

I literally just looked at a site you people said you like, did not criticise the looks of it, and told you why it was a bad site. You then told me you're the street smart group. This to me was finally proof - you aren't interested in learning, even when the things to learn would suit you. You just want an echo chamber and no discussion. To the point where you're telling others to leave your thread.

If you don't want a discussion, don't come on a discussion forum. Make a blog. Make sure to pick a good theme too, or the comments will be amusing.

 

[Tozovac]

I literally just looked at a site you people said you like, did not criticise the looks of it, and told you why it was a bad site. You then told me you're the street smart group. This to me was finally proof - you aren't interested in learning, even when the things to learn would suit you. You just want an echo chamber and no discussion. To the point where you're telling others to leave your thread.

If you don't want a discussion, don't come on a discussion forum. Make a blog. Make sure to pick a good theme too, or the comments will be amusing.

“You people,” huh? Hillary much?

Good God. Please go back and re-read my post. And read slooooowly. I called nobody a street smart group. I never said I loved that site. I (tried) to say, that even with the critiques and not-with-the-times accommodation blunders it may have, that particular site (that someone else picked, someone I don’t know and didn’t collude with) is more efficient for quickly understanding and navigating its content than MANY *optimized* and *accommodatng* sites that follow today’s trends which I find to be inefficient and more optional style over helpful substance. Aspects of that site’s “street smarts” (that are unrefined by today’s fads/standards that are written in a “book“ of accomodation requirements next to Apple’s re-invented interface requirements) gets the job done well enough. That’s it.

I am *not* interested in being convinced why a site like my Wix example (when viewed on an ipad, not iPhone, since the iPad site is a lot taller/longer scroll-happy than the iPhone presentation) is considered to be “good” because certain objective boxes can be checked. Subjectively, to me and many, it sucks, but it follows certain trends du jour. It is a space waster; the info on that site could easily be presented in one screen assuming a ~9” tablet. Please absorb. You may love liver and onions. I never will.

And, this thread is my blog. I’ve said many times initially that I come here to gripe and it makes me feel better as I await the pendulum swing back towards focusing more on function than form. The blog exists. Enjoy, or leave. My theme is anti-flat design, antI-low-contrast text, anti-hiding the search window beneath an hourglass icon that takes two taps to enact instead of one, etc.

I like discussion but I have zero interest in being told to understand the rationale that are completely separate from certain subjective/optional design decisions, as if that’d help me accept them. Hardly looking for an echo chamber but am beyond tired of some of your echos, to be honest.

 

[Akrapovic]

No idea why we're talking about Hiliary. You Americans and your whacky politics. brb, gotta injection some anti-Corona bleach!

I like discussion

Respectfully, you weaken your stance at times by being clearly wrong

Web optimized for six inch screens has by nature become content-unfriendly. It's optimized for dumb consumers, not learners.

Sadly, statistics can be used incorrectly and will be used incorrectly for the remainder of time.

these critiques are like the difference between extreme book smarts vs. extreme street smarts.

However, to me and @Tarian at least, despite the many critiques one could give this site, its “street smarts” are more than enough to efficiently get the job done

You’re invited to bow out and stop posting

And, this thread is my blog.

I have zero interest in being told to understand the rationale that are completely separate from certain subjective/optional design decisions

So in short -

We have industry experts in here. Actual web developers. You tell them they are wrong. Consumers are dumb. The statistics collected by systems such as Google Analytics and Firebase are used incorrectly. Anyone doing things correctly is just book smart - we need street smart. These street smarts get the job done, even if they exclude a portion of the population through incompetence. We should stop posting. This is your blog. But you do like discussions, honest.

You may be interested to know that your blog has an ignore function that you can utilise.

 

[Tozovac]

You tell them they are wrong. Consumers are dumb.

You may be interested to know that your blog has an ignore function that you can utilise.

Sigh. Let me ask. Are you suggesting that there are zero other options than what’s used in may sites I critique In order to produce a site you consider good and which meets all expectations? Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying. That there is zero subjectivity used in today’s websites for which I find many issues. That echo I’m tired of.

Thanks for all the gathering of quotes, some of which are used completely out of context by being shortened. Nice work.

You’re welcome to ignore my posts too.

 

[Akrapovic]

Sigh. Let me ask. Are you suggesting that there are zero other options than what’s used in may sites I critique In order to produce a site you consider good and which meets all expectations? Because that’s what it sounds like you are saying. That there is zero subjectivity used in today’s websites for which I find many issues. That echo I’m tired of.

Thanks for all the gathering of quotes, some of which are used completely out of context by being shortened. Nice work.

You’re welcome to ignore my posts too.

I'm not ignoring your posts because I figure if I keep posting the meaning of the terms you use incorrectly, or post stats such a the mobile figures, you may further investigate and find out why things are the way they are, rather than call designers lemmings. I'm not saying you'll like the answers, but rather than do any sort of investigation, you just say everyone is wrong, and dismiss an entire industry worth of knowledge as if you know better.

You call designers lemmings and wonder why people argue with you.

I never said there wasn't any options. I (and others) have maintained that these sort of designs are what obtain results. And it's hard to argue with the stats produced by extremely complex analytics applications and good old fashioned a/b testing. And this is what I mean by if you go learn about these things, you'll understand why it's done the way it's done. In fact, the only argument you had against these stats was to claim they're being misused. Which again, is dismissive of the entire industry. You don't even know the correct terminology, but think you know more than the experts on it.

Also "there i zero subjectivity used in todays websites for which I find many issues" is an interesting sentence. The definition of subjectivity is the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.. I mean, that sounds like the websites you dislike are actually being too subjective? They're all about feelings and tastes, rather than pure space efficiency? Seems to be most designers are going for feeling and mood over efficiency, which is the opposite of your "zero subjectivity"?

 

[Tozovac]

Also "there i zero subjectivity used in todays websites for which I find many issues" is an interesting sentence. The definition of subjectivity is the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.. I mean, that sounds like the websites you dislike are actually being too subjective? They're all about feelings and tastes, rather than pure space efficiency? Seems to be most designers are going for feeling and mood over efficiency, which is the opposite of your "zero subjectivity"?

Goodness Gracious. Let’s not talk websites, let’s talk one specific facet of interface design. What accommodation rule or best practice or analytics results supports that thin, light grey font on a bright white background is a solid solution. For that particular example, which I RARELY recall seeing out in the wild before Apple or Android started dabbling that shiny new technique, I have yet to read how that’s anything beyond a subjective decision. One that I find great issue with and consider to be a main example of an awful web/app/OS design element Let’s stick to just this example. What do I need to read up on that might convince me of an objective rationale behind it.

After that, next will be text-only buttons.

 

[Akrapovic]

Well done on ignoring the majority of my post there. Very well side stepped. You must be a dancer

Ok well the reduced contrast on text vs background generally goes back to the Web Accessibility Initiative. In round 2007 they published guidelines for web developers which recommended a contrast between text and background as 7:1. This is generally what most sites do (21:1 is Black on White). Apples own typography guidelines suggest the same thing. A minimum is usually 4:1. These guidelines were put together by a team of experts doing years of studying of text legibility. Google and Apple simply copied these guidelines, rather than created them from scratch.

Chromium based browsers have developer tools which will give you the contrast on any HTML element.

Further studies have been doing into this, the data of which went into things like the very popular Typography Handbook - https://typographyhandbook.com/#color . Reducing contrast increased comfort for users over longer periods of time.

Outside of the physical effects remember that not all text is created equal. Contrast is one way of highlighting important text, or forcing less important text to fade a in prominence. If you want to know why that's done, then have a look into mouse heat maps and how design can encourage users to interact with certain parts of the page. (This sort of thing would also be relevant to things like hero images, button colours etc). Mouse heat maps will also show you why the traditional 3 column layout is disappearing. Whilst very good for space efficiency, it doesn't turn into click rates as much as you'd expect. I have first hand experience with this one. Less becomes more, amazingly.

So yeah I'd have a look at studies into eye strain, and the Web Accessibility Initiative for contrast.

On a side note, this is an interesting read on why Black is generally never used. https://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/

 

[Herbert123]

Ok well the reduced contrast on text vs background generally goes back to the Web Accessibility Initiative. In round 2007 they published guidelines for web developers which recommended a contrast between text and background as 7:1. This is generally what most sites do (21:1 is Black on White). Apples own typography guidelines suggest the same thing. A minimum is usually 4:1. These guidelines were put together by a team of experts doing years of studying of text legibility. Google and Apple simply copied these guidelines, rather than created them from scratch.

And therein lies the rub. One of the original studies by Knoblauch which is referenced by these contrast guidelines is shoddy to say the very least. Ran on an Amiga in 1989, an old CRT, low resolution. Only a few test participants with unclear visual acuity. Tested by observing the test participants' reading speed of reading out loud a line of 80 characters? Unclear what typeface was used. What resolution (640x200?): unclear. Reading out loud text while reading is completely unnatural and invokes different areas of the brain.

That study should not be referenced at all at this point, because display technology and font tech has progressed too much for it to remain viable. Let alone the tiny number of participants, and unknown variables.

Then there is the difference between text legibility/readability and actual user comprehension of the text provided.

All in all, not very convincing as an argument for the validity of WCAG 2.0 guidelines in regards to optimal text contrast. And contrast is more than mere luminance contrast: type family, type size, leading, justification, and so on. Readability is much more than legibility.

The study on paper-based typography by Colin Wheildon has actually become quite relevant for screen based text comprehension due to every increasing screen resolutions (retina). An older study, but far more dependable for what works than an severely technically outdated and shoddy study like Knoblauch's, and in extension the related WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

And therein lies the rub. One of the original studies by Knoblauch which is referenced by these contrast guidelines is shoddy to say the very least. Ran on an Amiga in 1989, an old CRT, low resolution. Only a few test participants with unclear visual acuity. Tested by observing the test participants' reading speed of reading out loud a line of 80 characters? Unclear what typeface was used. What resolution (640x200?): unclear. Reading out loud text while reading is completely unnatural and invokes different areas of the brain.

That study should not be referenced at all at this point, because display technology and font tech has progressed too much for it to remain viable. Let alone the tiny number of participants, and unknown variables.

Then there is the difference between text legibility/readability and actual user comprehension of the text provided.

All in all, not very convincing as an argument for the validity of WCAG 2.0 guidelines in regards to optimal text contrast. And contrast is more than mere luminance contrast: type family, type size, leading, justification, and so on. Readability is much more than legibility.

The study on paper-based typography by Colin Wheildon has actually become quite relevant for screen based text comprehension due to every increasing screen resolutions (retina). An older study, but far more dependable for what works than an severely technically outdated and shoddy study like Knoblauch's, and in extension the related WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

Interesting perspective. Yet WCAG is used all around the world and back by many government. And updated since it came into effect late last century. But you seem to be knowing better. ok.

It is quite a bold claim to make. May I ask for any scientific citations to support that claim?

 

[Tarian]

If the touch target is smaller than your finger, it's an automatic fail.

The fact those defending this site says it works "tolerably" says quite a lot.

Please note I've used random formatting in my post. It makes it seem more important.

Surely that's what pinch to zoom is for ?.....to make things bigger (or smaller)

Oooh I forgot.....designers have designed that we shouldn't have that option any more .....
.... and amongst the reasons give on some design blogs.....
"We've designed it to look a certain way full screen" ?!?!?

And what about all those "touch targets" that have no discernible border i.e. they don't even look like "touch targets"?
Surely that should be an "automatic fail" ??
(How are undistinguished touch targets "accessible" for the visually impaired ..... or many other visitors ??)

 

[Akrapovic]

So you want less actions such as clicking and scrolling to be required, but we need to pinch zoom on every website? What extra steps are ok, and which aren't? Do you have a list?

Touch targets shouldn't always have hard visible borders. They should draw the finger to approx the centre. You'll actually find a lot of touch targets are not the shape you expect. And you'd be shocked to know how the touch targets on your phone keyboard look (hint: The keys actually overlap each other)

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Surely that's what pinch to zoom is for ?.....to make things bigger (or smaller)

Oooh I forgot.....designers have designed that we shouldn't have that option any more .....
.... and amongst the reasons give on some design blogs.....
"We've designed it to look a certain way full screen" ?!?!?

And what about all those "touch targets" that have no discernible border i.e. they don't even look like "touch targets"?
Surely that should be an "automatic fail" ??
(How are undistinguished touch targets "accessible" for the visually impaired ..... or many other visitors ??)

Are you seriously advocating that one needs to zoom in and out constantly to have a good experience. Really ??

The technology allows easily to provide a different experience on each responsive device.

 

[DanTheMan827]

What I find extremely annoying are sites that have a sticky navigation bar at the top that is unreasonably big.

That and websites that are more ads than actual content, it's even worse when the ADs load while your reading the article and shift the text requiring to you find where you were again.

 

[Michael Scrip]

What I find extremely annoying are sites that have a sticky navigation bar at the top that is unreasonably big.

And sometimes there is a sticky bar at the bottom too. The website is so narrow it's like you're looking through a mailslot!

 

[Tozovac]

Even though I initially titled this post about websites, much of my criticism about usability issues due to vagueness brought on by the combination of flat design, fashion-first thinking, and certain change-for-sake-of-change reinvented interface methods brought on with iOS 7 also apply to iOS/OS and apps. I’ve been noticing the slow return to intuitive function-first design in iOS and it makes me extremely happy. Last night I downloaded the Roku app to better control our television and am very, very pleased.

The app itself is VERY easy to instantly understand: First, the main function buttons are at the bottom and there’s only one “controls” icon at the top right (instead of seeing any combination of a face icon, gear icon, hamburger icon, and/or ellipses icon on the screen at once, leading to constant guessing games as to what settings/controls are under each). Secondly, the remote control screen uses smart, intuitive design harkening from before iOS7 instead of drab, vague, unwelcoming flat design.

Three of the biggest benefits of having buttons that look like buttons (in place of tiny text-only tap points) are: 1) the instant ability to recognize which items on the screen demand your attention as actionable items, 2) the ability to visually see the effects of your tapping since it’s possible to see the button changes color/shape both while and after pressing since the button is larger than your fingertip, and 3) this enables developers to use color much more effectively (before, colored text supposedly meant an item was tappable. Now color can return to being used to add differentiation to various tappable/actionable items as well as the info-only items. Again, way to go Roku! Function first, resulting in a beautiful and usable, frustration-free app!

I don’t know if the increasing signs of function-first design are the result of developers waking up by themselves, or the result of Apple slowly walking away from flat/fashion-first design themselves (resulting in the mostly-lemmings developer world to of course follow), but keep going developers! Glad to see Jony on the outside still!



Now if only the LIFX, Simplisafe, and Wyze folk will wake up and follow shortly...

 

[StellarVixen]

I am starting to see neumorphic elements appearing on some webpages.

 

[Tarian]

Even though I initially titled this post about websites, much of my criticism about usability issues due to vagueness brought on by the combination of flat design, fashion-first thinking, and certain change-for-sake-of-change reinvented interface methods brought on with iOS 7 also apply to iOS/OS and apps. I’ve been noticing the slow return to intuitive function-first design in iOS and it makes me extremely happy. Last night I downloaded the Roku app to better control our television and am very, very pleased.

The app itself is VERY easy to instantly understand: First, the main function buttons are at the bottom and there’s only one “controls” icon at the top right (instead of seeing any combination of a face icon, gear icon, hamburger icon, and/or ellipses icon on the screen at once, leading to constant guessing games as to what settings/controls are under each). Secondly, the remote control screen uses smart, intuitive design harkening from before iOS7 instead of drab, vague, unwelcoming flat design.

Three of the biggest benefits of having buttons that look like buttons (in place of tiny text-only tap points) are: 1) the instant ability to recognize which items on the screen demand your attention as actionable items, 2) the ability to visually see the effects of your tapping since it’s possible to see the button changes color/shape both while and after pressing since the button is larger than your fingertip, and 3) this enables developers to use color much more effectively (before, colored text supposedly meant an item was tappable. Now color can return to being used to add differentiation to various tappable/actionable items as well as the info-only items. Again, way to go Roku! Function first, resulting in a beautiful and usable, frustration-free app!

I don’t know if the increasing signs of function-first design are the result of developers waking up by themselves, or the result of Apple slowly walking away from flat/fashion-first design themselves (resulting in the mostly-lemmings developer world to of course follow), but keep going developers! Glad to see Jony on the outside still!

View attachment 973030

Now if only the LIFX, Simplisafe, and Wyze folk will wake up and follow shortly...

Web design has got so bad, you seem to be taking comfort in a tiny bit of colour gradient (purple) and top-edge white highlights around the "OK".

Have you been beaten down by the flat, minimalist onslaught ??

The button icons are uniformly monotone, puerile line icons - some ambiguous - and there's so few of them compared to a "real" remote..

All of my real Remotes have actual Text on the majority of buttons. Some are coloured.
WHY do web-designers feel the need to reduce (almost) everything to a bare minimum ? ....LESS than a bare minimum ???

Akrapovic and cyb3rdud3 # kept banging on about "accessibility>
How is that "remote" more "accessible" than one that replicates (as near as possible) an actual remote ?
Why do they insist on dragging the rest of us to their minimalist, parallel universe ??


Oh well I suppose "glass partly full" is being optimistic ....


# p.s. If I have the time, I may go back over their posts and make some rebuttals.

Mostly, they either failed to understand the point - i.e "our" definition of "accessibility" ....
...or deliberately went off on technical side-issues, playing the man and not the ball (ad hominem) - for (alleged) misuse of technical terms.

If coders are like engineers and have more expertise than me about making things actually "work", that's fine.
But Designers should not be telling telling the rest of us that "less is more" - they know best how we should do our work - or that navigating a snowy landscape is improved by grey text signposts with no borders or distinguishing colour.
(and how the f*ck is such nonsense "accessible" ????)