Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?
-
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
-
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
or Coca Cola
Soak it in sugary syrup, that'll get it clean
Sure. A quick rinse and scrub, and the sugar comes right off. Blood doesn't do that.
I don't remember exactly, but I recall reading somewhere that some EMTs and (homicide) cops will carry a case of coca-cola in their cars in order to help clean up blood stains from accident/crime scenes. Maybe it's the carbonation, or maybe something in the formulation, or both. It's almost certainly cheaper and easier to handle than many chemical cleaners.
If anything, it's the phosphoric acid, but that's not particularly strong. I'm not exactly sure about this one, but I'm inclined to believe it's as fake as the urban legend that you can put a steak in some coke for a day and it'll dissolve.
-
@topspin old Coke, before they reformulated it, would dissolve nails. It's still really good at removing oil and grease from concrete.
-
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
TFW you realize one forum user knows way too much about destruction of evidence and crime scene cleanup
-
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
TFW you realize one forum user knows way too much about destruction of evidence and crime scene cleanup
Considering the kind of people we have here (not in the psychopath sense, but in the extremely fringe knowledge sense), I‘d wager there’s more than one.
-
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
TFW you realize one forum user knows way too much about destruction of evidence and crime scene cleanup
And it's the guy who doesn't swear
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
a shitty infini-scroll page.
And I can also produce a shitty paginated page.
Case in point, IIRC the default table editor I'm using has four buttons to select the page: First, Previous, Next, and Last. You wanted page 12 in a 1921-page table? Fuck you!
Shitty implementation does not mean the system itself is shitty.
Except a paginated page usually puts a marker in the URL that I can manually adjust to work around your lack of foresight. That's not an option with any infiniscroll example that I've ever seen.
-
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
TFW you realize one forum user knows way too much about destruction of evidence and crime scene cleanup
Who, @Lorne-Kates?
Or @Polygeekery?
-
@Zenith said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
a shitty infini-scroll page.
And I can also produce a shitty paginated page.
Case in point, IIRC the default table editor I'm using has four buttons to select the page: First, Previous, Next, and Last. You wanted page 12 in a 1921-page table? Fuck you!
Shitty implementation does not mean the system itself is shitty.
Except a paginated page usually puts a marker in the URL that I can manually adjust to work around your lack of foresight. That's not an option with any infiniscroll example that I've ever seen.
See also: fucking CDCK
-
@Vixen said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
woudl
I knew you were @accalia
-
@sockpuppet7 Either that or one is the spirit fox of the other. I can't tell which way round.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
I can't believe
New here? Welcome to the forums!
-
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@hungrier said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's fake like most things in those lists.
What part? Cops carrying coke? Or that coke can clean up blood?
I know you can just use hydrogen peroxide to clean blood off of things, and a 32 oz bottle of 3% H2O2 is only about 50¢ at Walmart. That would probably be the cheapest, uh, *ahem*, solution.
TFW you realize one forum user knows way too much about destruction of evidence and crime scene cleanup
You have to deal with dumb bosses and co-workers occasionally.
-
@Zenith said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
a shitty infini-scroll page.
And I can also produce a shitty paginated page.
Case in point, IIRC the default table editor I'm using has four buttons to select the page: First, Previous, Next, and Last. You wanted page 12 in a 1921-page table? Fuck you!
Shitty implementation does not mean the system itself is shitty.
Except a paginated page usually puts a marker in the URL that I can manually adjust to work around your lack of foresight. That's not an option with any infiniscroll example that I've ever seen.
Scroll down a bit and:
My complaint about this is that it means my history starts looking like:—
-
@levicki Since you're asking... I'd personally prefer if it kept only two entries per thread: one for the post I've arrived and one for the post where I've left.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
The concept of infini-scroll is stupid because it mimics paper scrolls which were replaced because we invented something better. Therefore, people who defend it are also stupid and we should replace them with something better as well.
Paper scrolls had the major disadvantage that opening them in the middle was a problem, but they did have one advantage, namely that you can always see both context before and context after.
Books have the advantage that you can open them anywhere, but disadvantage that around page break you don't see all of the context easily.
But computer screens have different limitations than paper. So you can have both advantages with neither disadvantage. That's what both and the much hated do. It still has its share of problems, like the history spamming and the :jellypotato:.
An infiniscroll without bookmarks for specific posts is bad, but that's because that's bad infiniscroll, not because infiniscroll is always bad.
-
@Bulb said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
An infiniscroll without bookmarks for specific posts is bad, but that's because that's bad infiniscroll, not because infiniscroll is always bad.
But obviously, since so few notable sites make not-bad infiniscroll the whole thing obviously is always bad!
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@Gurth So you would prefer to have a single entry that takes you to the start of first page, with "first page" defined as "whatever happens to be trending now" and no way of knowing what you have already seen?
It would be better if the history showed just the first message I arrived at in the thread, rather than all those at which I stopped scrolling for a bit (or whatever the criteria are). This way, it would be similar to paginated forum pages: the history will remember you were at page No. 24 and bring you to the first message on that if you click on it, not that you looked at messages Nos. 1, 3, 12, 14 and 15 on page 24.
Also, since the message number isn’t in the history menu in the screenshot I posted, trying to get back to a specific message with it is entirely hit-and-miss.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
already showed one major bad and there are more. For example, youtube not loading all videos on a channel but loading them bit by bit as you scroll. How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Yes I could search the whole youtube, but video can be unlisted, and there can be hundreds of videos with the same name (when it's say a cover for a song I am trying to learn). Yeah, I could also type the author's name but why do that if I am on their channel already?You broke your example and argue in bad faith before it began: if a video is unlisted you'll not see it via any amount of scrolling or searching, so the point is moot.
-
Status: speaking of poor quality interfaces, I posted the above and started navigating elsewhere. There threads and try seconds later, I was unceremoniously pulled back here to look at it own post while not interacting with the site in any way.
WTF NodeBB???
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's easier to load whole channel and use CTRL+F to find video you want by typing a few letters of name than to use youtube search by entering full video name and then browse through dozens of videos until you find the one you wanted. You could add the channel name but that often gives even worse results.
There's a specific search box for searching a channel on the channel pages:
ObTopic: I'd usually rather have sites load everything or do paging instead of infiniscroll. Some of my reasons: loads in the background and is ready for reading immediately when I switch to the tab, scroll bars work properly, native browser search with Ctrl-F, no unexpected jumping or pausing as things are loaded in or dumped from memory, no history pollution, and other similar things.
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
By "functional", do you mean like Haskell? Or like using a hot knife to cut butter?
In any case, you mentioned "functional searchbar" as if there was such a thing on any website. Not even YouTube's search can easily find certain videos for which I have sometimes searched. I've seen where it would list a bunch of stuff where the search terms were a few letters off from the returned videos, even if I used quote marks, especially when the wrong videos were more popular. I've searched and failed to find specific videos when I had accidentally closed the tab (in incognito, so it wasn't in history), so I eventually had to go to the owner's channel and scroll through their videos in order to find it again.
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
-
@djls45 said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
ot even YouTube's search can easily find certain videos for which I have sometimes searched.
It's also been demonstrated that some videos get deliberately hidden from Youtube results
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
You mean...a "functional search bar" should break built-in browser functionality? Really?
-
@boomzilla said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
You mean...a "functional search bar" should break built-in browser functionality? Really?
Not at all. And, (not that I've tested it), as far as I know, Ctrl-F works just fine for searching in the text on the page. If it didn't, that would indeed be a WTF.
However, if you're searching for something, I would hardly expect Ctrl-F for the title text to work, given that there's really no guarantee that the title's text is even on the page...
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@boomzilla said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
How am I supposed to search on the page for a video by name?
Search in:channel? Or however you search a channel in YouTube. You're not seriously suggesting you expect "Ctrl-F the title" to be a supported workflow on a website with a functional searchbar are you?
You mean...a "functional search bar" should break built-in browser functionality? Really?
Not at all. And, (not that I've tested it), as far as I know, Ctrl-F works just fine for searching in the text on the page. If it didn't, that would indeed be a WTF.
However, if you're searching for something, I would hardly expect Ctrl-F for the title text to work, given that there's really no guarantee that the title's text is even on the page...
But...that's what he said he was doing. And I do that sort of thing a lot. You have a bunch of things on the page. Rather than trying to sift through it by eyeballing it, you use the browser to find the text on the page. Obviously, I don't expect to find anything not on the page but that doesn't make it a very useful tool.
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
However, if you're searching for something, I would hardly expect Ctrl-F for the title text to work, given that there's really no guarantee that the title's text is even on the page...
If the video existed, I would expect the title to appear on a list of videos. If not the first page, then the next one, or the one after that, etc
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@sloosecannon Ctrl-F works fine on normal pages, not on infini-scroll pages. Infini-scroll is breaking it in one additional way -- when there are multiple matches on a single page browser goes back to the first match, which means instead of clicking next page navigation which is usually bot at top and bottom you now have to scroll all the way down to get more content to load so you can keep searching.
Please, tell me more about how Ctrl-F works on paginated datasets.
-
@Parody said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
native browser search with Ctrl-F,
That's not any better paginated than infiniscroll. I remember trying to find something in one of those multi hundred page monster threads on XDA developers, it was a nightmare
-
@Jaloopa True, but infiniscroll adds that layer of "I've jumped back to the top of the page, pray I haven't loaded earlier posts again and unloaded latter posts" @levicki was talking about.
I get that a lot when I'm looking for a thread in /recent.
I partially blame this on the browser not having an option to prevent restarting the search from the top.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
I can't believe we are having a discussion about scrolling .vs. pages -- it should be really obvious which is better, especially for software developers.
Let's take that one step further. Clearly trees are better than arrays of pages, so we should stop the paper industry from turning superior data structures into worse ones.
On an semi-related note: Why do illustrations of tree data structures draw the root at the top and the leaves at the bottom? Have these people like never seen a biological tree?
Filed under: An Australian conspiracy.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
For a small number of choices (say less than 10) radio-buttons are superior because choices are all visible at the same time and you can just pick one while with a dropdown you need to perform an extra action (click on a dropdown) to even see the choices, and if the dropdown part is made too short another extra action (scroll) before you can see them all and make a choice.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. In my practical experience, 10 radio is pretty unweildy, and to fit on the limited screen real-estate available on mobile devices, and all those "responsive" frameworks handle repositioning them in a really clunky and ugly way by default. Furthermore, since most times I see radio buttons used, they "enable" a div full of additional options which could easily just be swapped out when the appropriate dropdown item is selected. Plus, using a drop-down makes data interchange with AJAX based sites which are backed by APIs a lot more straightforward and results in less server side code like
if (x) {...} else if (y){...} else if (z) {...}
Functional decomposition can make this somewhat sane, but I find people who like radio buttons, also like other archaic conventions like "single point of return", and 5000 line long functions, which re-use variables and rely heavily on in-line SQL with no business object layer.
Just my personal opinion I guess. There are sometimes compelling reasons to use them, but only for trivially short sets of choices (and I'm talking like 3 max).
@Gurth said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Not everyone knows this, and in any case, setting the focus on the most likely field a user will want to type into first is going to be quicker all round (except for the programmer, of course).
The downside of this is that there is no way to prevent the first character the user presses from instantly jumping to that field. Depending on the design, this could result in the browser scrolling passed a lot of content (usually describing how or why you're filling in the form, and in more cases than not, this violates the principle of least surprise. Most web users are familiar with the page metaphor, and stealing focus is IMHO "surprising"
Pressing the [Tab] key to advance cursor focus is a vastly more well known concept to most end-users than developers and designers are willing to beleive. I recall my days of developing Desktop Apps, where one of our most commonly reported (although trivial to fix) bugs was illogical tab ordering where the [Tab] key jumped focus all over the form in a random fashion because the original dev didn't set a logical tab order, but it just came out as an artifact of how the dialog was created, and the various deletes, repositioning and copy-pasting of controls.
Yes, I eventually wrote some MFC code to automatically fix tab ordering in a generic and consistent way, left to right, top to bottom, but remember this
iswas MFC where such things are stored in the dialog's resource file, and doing anything even remotely creative was as frustrating as installing a printer driver from the era, or getting your dial-up internet to work.You'd battle with inaccurate documentation, different behavior between run-time versions and it still never really worked properly, especially where 3rd party controls commonly rolled their own focus behaviour within a custom-drawn control that managed cursor state whilst it had focus with some elongated state-machine that snatched WM_KEYDOWN for it's own purposes.
I'm just grateful that as programmers, we've moved on to a new, more brightly colored and somewhat less dreary hell, one that for me is a lot less soul destroying, and I think is improving, just sometimes in a bit of a misguide way. At least we now have a plethora of resources at our disposal to track down problems, and for the most part, mashing a misspelled, and vaguely coherent description of your roadblock leads to an almost instant article which at least has others who share your problem. Unfortunately, we're not quit at the point where it always yields a solution.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's a perfect interface only if all you do with it is show short-lived, unimportant stuff (such as cat pictures feed).
Which is sadly becoming a common use case on the web. Almost infinite amounts of unimportant content with only a short temporal significance, that most users would never want to reference again, being generated at roughly the same rate as it is being consumed.
-
@idzy said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
At least we now have a plethora of resources at our disposal to track down problems, and for the most part, mashing a misspelled, and vaguely coherent description of your roadblock leads to an almost instant article which at least has others who share your problem.
Most of the problems I search for seem to lead to issue reports with literally hundreds of people asking the same thing and the only “solutions” on offer being things which are trivially provable to not be the issue.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@idzy said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
being generated at roughly the same rate as it is being consumed.
Last time I checked, for youtube it was 300 hours of new video every single hour.
Sure, that's a neat factoid, but the relevant factoid needed to put that into perspective is: On average how many hours of youtube videos are watched every hour across their entire user base?
is it more than 100? 200? 300? maybe it's only 10? or perhaps it's as large as 1000? bigger? smaller? we need to know to put the 300 hours per hour number into perspective.
-
@sloosecannon said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Please, tell me more about how Ctrl-F works on paginated datasets.
Quite well
-
@cvi said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Have these people like never seen a biological tree?
Like many computer terms that began as metaphors, it's become divorced from its etymological roots.
Folders and files don't make me think of filing cabinets (despite the residual iconography), radio buttons don't make me think of radios, and the save icon only conjures up dim memories of an obsolete data storage medium.
-
Where I imagine the hyphen to be:
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
the save icon only conjures up
dimfoggy memories of an obsolete-data storage medium.Associated save icon:
-
@cvi said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Where I imagine the hyphen to be:
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
the save icon only conjures up
dimfoggy memories of an obsolete-data storage medium.Associated save icon:
squints
A tree?
-
@PleegWat No, let me "help" you with another icon.
Even more self-explanatory.
-
@cvi
Error's lifestyle thread is
-
@cvi A bush with a tiny house in front of it?
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Do you count two people watching the same one hour video as two hours of watching?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dunno.
but i suspect the answer to that question will turn out to be vital to determining the correct answer to the original query.
-
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Production on the other hand can be (and mostly is) unique if we don't count duplicate uploads of pirated stuff.
What about re-uploads of things that YouTube in its infinite wisdom removed for various reasons that later turned out to not apply, or which required minor changes to the original video to address?
-
@idzy said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
we've moved on to a new, more brightly colored
and somewhat less drearybut flatter hellFTFFD
-
@idzy said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
It's a perfect interface only if all you do with it is show short-lived, unimportant stuff (such as cat pictures feed).
Which is sadly becoming a common use case on the web. Almost infinite amounts of unimportant content with only a short temporal significance, that most users would never want to reference again, being generated
at roughly the same rate asmuch faster than it is being consumed.I forget the statistics I heard for YouTube recently. I think it was something like 8000–9000 hours (1 year) of video uploaded every 24 hours. For just one of the many platforms for unimportant content..
Edit: Which is not too very different from the 300:1 ratio @levicki cited.
-
@cvi said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
Where I imagine the hyphen to be:
@error said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
the save icon only conjures up
dimfoggy memories of an obsolete-data storage medium.Associated save icon:
Your files going up in smoke?
@cvi said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@PleegWat No, let me "help" you with another icon.
Even more self-explanatory.
"Smog alert, stay inside"?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@Jaloopa said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
@levicki said in Do people actually like poor quality user interfaces?:
there is no way to save the current position in case you want to come back later and continue from that point
This black magic doesn't work with slow-Loading images.
And somehow I find myself wishing it was a feed with a search function. I hate clicking page numbers to find what I want, and search dumps you into a completely different interface, where you can no longer your usual workflow. Infiniscroll with efficient integrated search (imagine searching the whole thread just like your browser searches a page) would be an awesome interface metaphor for a forum.
In case you haven't noticed, I HATE pagination with a passion. It's a relic of the past, and I have sites with rerecords in the billions, where which load a dimensioned list (with an accurate scroll bar) using only a few hundred K per AJAX user interaction, with efficient server-side queries to load, sort and filter what you want. If you're someone who likes scrolling through gigantic sorted lists, you're sorted. You won't even notice the difference, but it'll load on average <0.6% of the entire recordset. If you're someone (sane) who prefers to search, you've got wildcards, google-style subtraction operators, as well as forced inclusion.
Things which do this are available as open source software (although our implementation is proprietary, and tied heavily to PostgreSQL). From my experiments, this technique sucks beyond belief on MS SQL Server as it can't keep track of it's index length properly, so the initial query to dimension the list (tell you how many items are in it) is normally at least an index scan.
For more vitriol on SQL Server, it's indexes (indices?) suck. Not enough types, waste disk space, get "desynchronised" with the table. Moreover, it cots almost as much as freaking Oracle. If you're going to pay for a database, at least spend the little bit more to buy the "good" one. Oracle 19 is a LOT more user friendly than previous editions, and far more capable than Microsoft's offering, which whilst not as expensive on it's own, needs a domain controller for replication, doesn't have eventual consistency.... But, it has better tooling than the others.