![]() ![]() ![]() I can't agree more, people yell at me when I suggest Craigslist is a wonderfully designed site.Ĭraigslist is ugly as fuck and highly functional and discoverable. Yeah, I have a problem with how we do UX these days. Where we have had breakthroughs in the last 15-20 years is in dark patterns that are better for short term profits and make the user experience ever worse. I do know that overall usability at the OS, application, and web-level have all dropped like a damn rock since the Windows 2000/XP era which was a high-water mark for design affordances, discoverability, and usability. It's important to remember that UX/Usability engineering is an actual job, I get the sense here that lots of people are looking down on them if they think that job can be done by some random engineer shadowing a user for an hour a year.Ī lot of people look down on them because it feels like UX engineering is often based on blindly following industry trends that are sometimes terrible.Īnd a lot do so because UI/UX is one of the few pink collar areas in tech. ![]() Now, coders might very well be shitty field testers but, again, if they're open to it, you can get a shit ton of very useful information too. Or even if you find yourself wondering why the hell you need to swipe at the merchant's counter in the first place. Maybe the swipe bar seems perfectly positioned and reasonable in the office, but when you're trying to swipe while holding a pizza and a couple cans of coke, it would be so much easier if the bar was at the bottom of the phone rather than at the top. Yes, you'll run into the case where a designer will just run through their expected use scenario and be like "Ah, yes, this product was truly designed by a genius", but you can also glean a lot of info by simply getting them to experience the whole experience than just their little corner outside of a test environment. You can and should be gathering this information via different methods. It's not so much the case that you either do one or the other, period. You are far better off getting these people to watch some rando try and use the thing and get a better sense of the flow of the actual job vs the flow the app wants to use. They will conform to the expected user behaviour for the most part because they are the ones that decided what that expected user behaviour was. The people building the system are also the worst people to have evaluate it because they already know how it works. I imagine the most likely outcome of this for the devs is "Yep, the app sucks in all the ways we know it does! And, we still are not planning to fix it!" Your dev team doesn't.īesides which, in most dev teams I've been in, the developers KNOW what the problems with the code are, the issue is getting management permission/time to fix them. It makes sense for executives/franchise owner types to do this kind of thing because they are going to be dealing with the organization top to bottom, and need to know how to deal with issues at every level. A bunch of dabblers taking over for a day isn't going to help them do their job, and if they're not doing their job well then the dabblers aren't going to fix that. Oh wait, not it didn't.It's stupid to have your engineers do this, because you should already have a product team that's gathering info from your users and working on interface and usability improvements and all that. ![]() I'm sure that won't cause any problems, like a sovereign debt crisis for example, at all.Īfter all single payer for all worked out fine in Vermont. So you're looking at adding another $16-$32 trillion to that over ten years depending on how overly optimistic his plan turns out to be. Right now the total US debt is $20 trillion In a 2016 report on his presidential campaign's "Medicare for All" plan, the Urban Institute estimated that the plan would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. Altogether, his estimates of how much money his funding mechanisms would generate totals up to around $16 trillion over 10 years. In addition, Sanders' plan says the end of big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers' ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.īut even with all of those potential revenue-boosters, Sanders may still fall far short of the total amount of money needed to pay for his ambitious program. Among the proposals: a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. There's no exact plan for how to pay for Sanders' bill, but he did on Wednesday afternoon release a list of potential payment options. A generous plan that covers all Americans is going to require more revenue. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |