←back to thread

Hidden interface controls that affect usability

(interactions.acm.org)
559 points cxr | 4 comments | 05 Jul 25 23:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.523s | source
Show context
zmmmmm ◴[06 Jul 25 00:15 UTC] No.44476622[source]▶
I think the article overlooks that it is not really an accident that apps and operating systems are hiding all their user interface affordances. It's an antipattern to create lock in, and it tends to occur once a piece of software has reached what they consider saturation point in terms of growth where keeping existing users in is more important than attracting new ones. It so turns out that the vast majority of software we use is created by companies in exactly that position - Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta etc.

It might seem counter intuitive that hiding your interface stops your users leaving. But it does it because it changes your basis of assumptions about what a device is and your relationship with it. It's not something you "use", but something you "know". They want you to feel inherently linked to it at an intuitive level such that leaving their ecosystem is like losing a part of yourself. Once you've been through the experience of discovering "wow, you have to swipe up from a corner in a totally unpredictable way to do an essential task on a phone", and you build into your world of assumptions that this is how phones are, the thought of moving to a new type of phone and learning all that again is terrifying. It's no surprise at all that all the major software vendors are doing this.

replies(4): >>44476656 #>>44476691 #>>44476747 #>>44480205 #
eddythompson80 ◴[06 Jul 25 00:38 UTC] No.44476747[source]▶
I think you picked a hypothesis and assumed it was true and ran with it.

Consider that all the following are true (despite their contradictions):

- "Bloated busy interface" is a common complaint of some of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Meta. people here share a blank vscode canvas and complain about how busy the interface is compared to their 0-interface vim setup.

- flat design and minimalism are/were in fashion (have been for few years now).

- /r/unixporn and most linux people online who "rice" their linux distros do so by hiding all controls from apps because minimalism is in fashion

- Have you tried GNOME recently?

Minimal interface where most controls are hidden is a certain look that some people prefer. Plenty of people prefer to "hide the noise" and if they need something, they are perfectly capable to look it up. It's not like digging in manuals is the only option

replies(5): >>44476810 #>>44476949 #>>44477051 #>>44477061 #>>44477685 #
1. zmmmmm ◴[06 Jul 25 01:38 UTC] No.44477061[source]▶
I agree with you it's very fashion driven and hence you see it in all kinds of places outside the core drivers of it. But my argument is, those fashions themselves are driven by the major players deciding to do this for less than honorable reasons.

I do think it's likely more passive than active. People at Google aren't deviously plotting to hide buttons from the user. But what is happening is that when these designs get reviewed, nobody is pushing back - when someone says "but how will the user know to do that?", it doesn't get listend to. Instead the people responsible are signing off on it saying, "it's OK, they will just learn that, once they get to know it, then it will be OK". It's all passive but it's based on an implicit assumption that uses are staying around and optimising for the ones that do, making it harder for the ones that want to come and go or stop in temporarily.

Once three or four big companies start doing it, everybody else cargo cults it and before you know it, it looks like fashion and GNOME is doing it too.

replies(3): >>44478847 #>>44480873 #>>44481849 #
2. 9dev ◴[06 Jul 25 08:23 UTC] No.44478847[source]▶
Somehow in your theory you omit the fact that people can learn how to use a new interface? It’s not like you’re entitled to a UI that never adds functionality anymore, ever. Sure, vendors ought to provide onboarding tutorials and documentation and such, but using that material is on the user.
3. gf000 ◴[06 Jul 25 13:58 UTC] No.44480873[source]▶
Is this the same GNOME? https://wiki.gnome.org/Design(2f)Studies.html
4. igregoryca ◴[06 Jul 25 16:00 UTC] No.44481849[source]▶
> I do think it's likely more passive than active. People at Google aren't deviously plotting to hide buttons from the user.

This is important, thank you for mentioning it: actions have consequences besides those that motivated the action. I don't like when people say "<actor> did <action>, and it leads to this nefarious outcome, therefore look how evil <actor> must be". Yes, there is always a chance that <actor> really is a scheming, cartoonish villain who intended that outcome all along. But how likely is it that <actor> is just naive, or careless, or overly optimistic?

Of course, the truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle: familiarity with a hard-to-learn UI as a point of friction that promotes lock-in may not be a goal, but when it manifests, it doesn't hurt the business, so no one does anything about it. Does that mean the designers should be called out for it? If the effect is damaging enough to the collective interest, then maybe yes. But we needn't assume nefarious intentions to do so.

Then again, everyone thinks their own actions are justified within their own value system, and corporate values do tend toward the common denominator (usually involving profit-making). Maybe the world just has way more cartoonish villains than I give it credit for.