←back to thread

917 points cryptophreak | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
squeedles ◴[] No.45761639[source]
Good article, but the reasoning is wrong. It isn't easy to make a simple interface in the same way that Pascal apologized for writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one.

Implementing the UI for one exact use case is not much trouble, but figuring out what that use case is difficult. And defending that use case from the line of people who want "that + this little extra thing", or the "I just need ..." is difficult. It takes a single strong-willed defender, or some sort of onerous management structure, to prevent the interface from quickly devolving back into the million options or schizming into other projects.

Simply put, it is a desirable state, but an unstable one.

replies(22): >>45761688 #>>45761787 #>>45761946 #>>45762556 #>>45763000 #>>45763132 #>>45763419 #>>45763515 #>>45764215 #>>45765589 #>>45766183 #>>45766281 #>>45768514 #>>45769691 #>>45771196 #>>45771307 #>>45771846 #>>45772026 #>>45773411 #>>45773951 #>>45776266 #>>45779651 #
duxup ◴[] No.45763132[source]
It always amazes me how even just regular every day users will come to me with something like this:

Overly simplified example:

"Can you make this button do X?" where the existing button in so many ways is only distantly connected to X. And then they get stuck on the idea that THAT button has to be where the thing happens, and they stick with it even if you explain that the usual function of that button is Y.

I simplified it saying button, but this applies to processes and other things. I think users sometimes think picking a common thing, button or process that sort of does what they want is the right entry point to discuss changes and maybe they think that somehow saves time / developer effort. Where in reality, just a new button is in fact an easier and less risky place to start.

I didn't say that very well, but I wonder if that plays a part in the endless adding of complexity to UI where users grasp onto a given button, function, or process and "just" want to alter it a little ... and it never ends until it all breaks down.

replies(7): >>45763322 #>>45763345 #>>45764270 #>>45764775 #>>45765654 #>>45766997 #>>45771204 #
nerdponx ◴[] No.45764270[source]
Don't fall into the trap of responding to the user's request to do Y a certain way. They are asking you to implement Y, and they think they know how it should be implemented, but really they would be happy with Y no matter how you did it. https://xyproblem.info/
replies(3): >>45764431 #>>45764808 #>>45765180 #
LegionMammal978 ◴[] No.45764808[source]
On the other hand, I've not uncommonly seen this idea misused: Alice asks for Y, Bob says that it's an XY problem and that Alice really wants to solve a more general problem X with solution Z, Alice says that Z doesn't work for her due to some detail of her problem, Bob browbeats Alice over "If you think Z won't work, then you're wrong, end of story", and everyone argues back and forth over Z instead of coming up with a working solution.

Sometimes the best solution is not the most widely-encouraged one.

replies(3): >>45765172 #>>45770384 #>>45771222 #
1. nerdponx ◴[] No.45765172{4}[source]
Bob saying "you should use Z end of story" it's just as a hardheaded and unhelpful as Bob saying "X doesn't do that end of story".
replies(1): >>45772663 #
2. dwaltrip ◴[] No.45772663[source]
Unfortunately, still quite common. The ego is quite the tricky one.