Comments on: Note On Web2.0 Interfaces http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/ Episode VI: Return of The Blog Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:32:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: ponto http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-17 ponto Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:59:11 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-17 simplicity is allways the main key (: simplicity is allways the main key (:

]]> By: André http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-26 André Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:00:05 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-26 Yes, it did. Maybe the discussion clarified it further. Good luck on your exams. Yes, it did. Maybe the discussion clarified it further.

Good luck on your exams.

]]> By: lrei http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-25 lrei Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:59:42 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-25 Life is so much more fun when people disagree with you :) Yes I agree that some kind of indication for different behavior might be a (very) good idea in cases like this. My post tries to make the point (by as few words as possible) that both unexpected behavior and "special effects"/eye-candy can have a negative impact on the user's experience (mostly be annoying). The example I pointed out in the comments (addons.mozilla.org) is sadly not the best, just the one I found prior to writing this. I haven't browsed the net much lately (exam season) so I can't really put on better but I think the point did manage to get across despite the lack of a good example. Life is so much more fun when people disagree with you :)

Yes I agree that some kind of indication for different behavior might be a (very) good idea in cases like this.

My post tries to make the point (by as few words as possible) that both unexpected behavior and “special effects”/eye-candy can have a negative impact on the user’s experience (mostly be annoying).

The example I pointed out in the comments (addons.mozilla.org) is sadly not the best, just the one I found prior to writing this. I haven’t browsed the net much lately (exam season) so I can’t really put on better but I think the point did manage to get across despite the lack of a good example.

]]> By: André http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-24 André Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:38:02 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-24 Ok, I can settle on that. :) I also love gmail as much as the next guy... specially for taking the time to implement the back button. And yes, I was talking about opening a conversation/message in a new window. From these new ways of interaction, what really bothers me is Snap.com, with those little previews. But they have been catching on, allowing the user to turn off the feature for good. Despite not fully agreeing, your post does have a very important point. Unexpected behaviour. Maybe if you were presented with a little sign or a different link (w/ a special icon) for this behavior would be nice, no? And sorry for contradicting you right in your "doorstep". Ok, I can settle on that. :) I also love gmail as much as the next guy… specially for taking the time to implement the back button. And yes, I was talking about opening a conversation/message in a new window.

From these new ways of interaction, what really bothers me is Snap.com, with those little previews. But they have been catching on, allowing the user to turn off the feature for good.

Despite not fully agreeing, your post does have a very important point. Unexpected behaviour. Maybe if you were presented with a little sign or a different link (w/ a special icon) for this behavior would be nice, no?

And sorry for contradicting you right in your “doorstep”.

]]> By: lrei http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-23 lrei Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:39:34 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-23 Gmail doesn't break the back button, it's one of the things i love about it. And it's very clean - no unnecessary effects, no flashy buttons and it is fairly intuitive. It's not perfect that's for sure. But you're wrong about breaking the ctrl-click that works in gmail (on images, not on the actual emails - that's sad and I hope they fix it). I agree that lighbox isn't the Antichrist and it's far from the worse (in fact it's ALMOST tolerable) and that perhaps I'm a bit too used to the default behavior of the web and it's a very good thing not breaking the "open in new tab" stuff. But I don't think I'll ever like the shading effect. The biggest problem being "not expecting it" - it's always a bit of a shock whenever I come across it. Gmail doesn’t break the back button, it’s one of the things i love about it. And it’s very clean – no unnecessary effects, no flashy buttons and it is fairly intuitive. It’s not perfect that’s for sure. But you’re wrong about breaking the ctrl-click that works in gmail (on images, not on the actual emails – that’s sad and I hope they fix it).

I agree that lighbox isn’t the Antichrist and it’s far from the worse (in fact it’s ALMOST tolerable) and that perhaps I’m a bit too used to the default behavior of the web and it’s a very good thing not breaking the “open in new tab” stuff. But I don’t think I’ll ever like the shading effect. The biggest problem being “not expecting it” – it’s always a bit of a shock whenever I come across it.

]]> By: André http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-22 André Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:08:23 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-22 Funny you should say that... From what you wrote i can tell you this... lightbox and addons at mozilla do exactly what you want. Since they built it using unobtrusive javacript (the right way to do it), you can ctrl-click or middle-click to open the pics in new tabs. What's even funnier is that GMail doesn't, and you like it over the rest. I get your beef with repositioning buttons, but there are far worse things... like breaking the back button, breaking the functionality where javascript is not enabled/supported... Funny you should say that… From what you wrote i can tell you this… lightbox and addons at mozilla do exactly what you want. Since they built it using unobtrusive javacript (the right way to do it), you can ctrl-click or middle-click to open the pics in new tabs. What’s even funnier is that GMail doesn’t, and you like it over the rest.

I get your beef with repositioning buttons, but there are far worse things… like breaking the back button, breaking the functionality where javascript is not enabled/supported…

]]> By: lrei http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-21 lrei Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:54:24 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-21 Ok it "shades"... I find the effect annoying and distracting. Position of the buttons does make a difference. Even a chimp could find the button regardless of where it's located that's not the issue, the issue is having to look for it. If you're used to something why change unless it's for (considerably) better and since I really don't see how bottom is any better than top... In many (probably most) cases I could agree that JavaScript (or Flash) is a good approach to a gallery (dGallery of Deziner Folio http://www.dezinerfolio.com is pretty cool) however certainly not all. In the addons.mozilla.org case, the standard popup would've been my choice. I'd hate to see something like it or lightbox in say a game screenshots page (like IGNs) - it's a lot better, in my honest opinion, to just ctrl-click or middle-click open 30 tabs. I've seen a lot of sites try "different things" with JavaScript and flash and it's just not as good and often annoying (go-to-another-website annoying in fact). As for the general issue of web2.0 interfaces. I like what google did with gmail and calendar. Simple, clean, everything is more or less where one can expect it to be, no eye-candy that gets in the way. Ok it “shades”… I find the effect annoying and distracting.
Position of the buttons does make a difference. Even a chimp could find the button regardless of where it’s located that’s not the issue, the issue is having to look for it. If you’re used to something why change unless it’s for (considerably) better and since I really don’t see how bottom is any better than top…
In many (probably most) cases I could agree that JavaScript (or Flash) is a good approach to a gallery (dGallery of Deziner Folio http://www.dezinerfolio.com is pretty cool) however certainly not all. In the addons.mozilla.org case, the standard popup would’ve been my choice.
I’d hate to see something like it or lightbox in say a game screenshots page (like IGNs) – it’s a lot better, in my honest opinion, to just ctrl-click or middle-click open 30 tabs. I’ve seen a lot of sites try “different things” with JavaScript and flash and it’s just not as good and often annoying (go-to-another-website annoying in fact).
As for the general issue of web2.0 interfaces. I like what google did with gmail and calendar. Simple, clean, everything is more or less where one can expect it to be, no eye-candy that gets in the way.

]]> By: André Luís http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-20 André Luís Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:21:24 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-20 Well, they don't "blank" it.. they "shade" it? Like a shadow. In my opinion it's a far better approach then opening the file either in a new window or simply linking to it. It avoids the reloading of the page everytime you want to view a different picture. All without the use of the ever so hyped ajax. If you want to bypass the eyecandy effect, open in a new tab. IMHO, eye candy only sucks when it stands in the way of what you're trying to do. I just don't think that's the case here. As far as the position of the close button goes... I dont see it like you do. I'm both a Mac and a Windows user, so I'm used to having the close buttons switching from side to side. As far as I, the user, can tell where the damn button is and it looks like a close button... I'm fine. Remember, the users might be dumb, but not THAT dumb. :) For an exercise on the usefulness of this approach, try timing yourself going through the entire set of pictures in a page with and without it (just turn off the Javascript). Well, they don’t “blank” it.. they “shade” it? Like a shadow. In my opinion it’s a far better approach then opening the file either in a new window or simply linking to it. It avoids the reloading of the page everytime you want to view a different picture. All without the use of the ever so hyped ajax.
If you want to bypass the eyecandy effect, open in a new tab.

IMHO, eye candy only sucks when it stands in the way of what you’re trying to do. I just don’t think that’s the case here.

As far as the position of the close button goes… I dont see it like you do. I’m both a Mac and a Windows user, so I’m used to having the close buttons switching from side to side. As far as I, the user, can tell where the damn button is and it looks like a close button… I’m fine. Remember, the users might be dumb, but not THAT dumb. :)

For an exercise on the usefulness of this approach, try timing yourself going through the entire set of pictures in a page with and without it (just turn off the Javascript).

]]> By: lrei http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-19 lrei Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:10:11 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-19 Yes. lightbox is a good example though far from the worse. The site that inspired this post was addons.mozilla.org which on top of the blank screen effect - which looks like what happens when an application freezes in Ubuntu making things all the more confusing - also has the close button on the bottom right corner instead of the upper right corner which is the de facto standard. Yes. lightbox is a good example though far from the worse. The site that inspired this post was addons.mozilla.org which on top of the blank screen effect – which looks like what happens when an application freezes in Ubuntu making things all the more confusing – also has the close button on the bottom right corner instead of the upper right corner which is the de facto standard.

]]> By: André Luís http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-18 André Luís Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:02:03 +0000 http://luisrei.com/2007/06/13/note-on-web20-interfaces/#comment-18 Well said... could you point us to a clear example of what you're describing? Do you include the lightbox behaviour in your post? Well said… could you point us to a clear example of what you’re describing? Do you include the lightbox behaviour in your post?

]]>