
If you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it - aaronbrethorst
http://blog.maxrudberg.com/post/38958984259/if-you-see-a-ui-walkthrough-they-blew-it
======
ary
This is utter nonsense. Spend even a small amount of time with someone who
works outside of the computer hardware/software industry and observe how and
_why_ they use a smart phone or computer. UI walkthroughs are not only
necessary, but desired. They act as the equivalent of standing next to someone
and "showing" them how something works. As the OP correctly notes there is a
very heavy reliance on mimicry for most learning.

Visual cues are nice, and even desired, but gentle introductions outlining how
to get started are as well.

~~~
btn
One of irks I have with "slight visual cues and subtle animations" is that
they assume all users will give the same amount of attention and have the same
reasoning process as the designer does. They then call the design "obvious",
as if that is an objective quality---but even a short conversation (or
usability study) with a sample of their users will tell them it's anything
but.

~~~
zbowling
Nothing wrong with being bold and trying new ideas but obvious is only really
qualifiable via user testing. It's simple thing to do to see if your product
is actually usable.

My method is to get 3 random craigslist people and pay them $50 bucks to play
with the app for an hour. Record them struggling and have them talk through
their thoughts and how they use your app. You will learn more from that
experience than anything else.

~~~
evalapply
Rather than going through Craigslist, at my last startup we used
<http://www.usertesting.com/> \- $39 bucks and the user testing video is all
yours. Pretty decent.

------
zbowling
This is wrong. How the hell did we learn "pinch to zoom" on the iPhone/iPad
was a thing? We were shown!

Lots and lots of demos to re-enforce the action and get users accustom to a
thing is fine if that experience doesn't frustrate the user and they can get
up to speed using the app quickly.

If you are choosing neat new ways of communicating and changing the way the
user interacts with the app for the sake of being neat, that is fail. If you
violate the users expectations without a damn good reason, that is fail.

A fail is Windows 8 and having users try and figure out how to launch a new
application. It takes a keyboard shortcut to open the metro desktop to launch
another app. This is not obvious and nor is it reinforced very well.
[http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/new-keyboard-
sh...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/new-keyboard-
shortcuts#1TC=t1)

~~~
enraged_camel
>>This is wrong. How the hell did we learn "pinch to zoom" on the iPhone/iPad
was a thing? We were shown!

I'm not so sure about that. My grandmother, who certainly had not seen an iPad
or iPhone in action before (she's 85, doesn't speak English and doesn't watch
TV), figured it out within one minute of using my iPad for the first time
yesterday.

If you think about the pinching movement, the distance between your thumb and
index finger correlates to the size of the object. Increase that distance and
the object grows in size (i.e. you zoom in). And vice versa. This is what I'd
like to call "hyper-intuitive" and is the kind of thing people can figure out
without being trained on it.

~~~
ebf
To continue using the iPhone as an example, I realized that after two years,
my Dad never realized that double clicking brings up the app switcher. I agree
that it is better if you don't need a walkthrough, but I wouldn't say that you
"blew it" if your app needs one. If a 30 second tutorial let's the user do
very powerful and intuitive things, things that may save the user time over
the long run, than maybe it is okay.

~~~
enraged_camel
Not really. The app switcher is not the only way to switch apps. In fact, it
is the more difficult of the two. It makes you click the home button twice,
then tap the app you want once - versus click the home button once, and then
the app you want once. Three clicks/taps versus two. As such, it is not a huge
deal at all that it is not intuitive.

Same thing with double-tap to zoom. Not terribly intuitive, but that's not a
big deal because there's a "hyper-intuitive" way to zoom. Double-tap becomes
necessary only in very specific situations where only the hand holding the
phone is free - which is not very common.

~~~
zevyoura
On the other hand, the double tap brings up the four most recently used
applications, which, for my usage patterns at least, are more likely to be
what I'm looking for than the apps on my home screen.

~~~
ricardobeat
Most people put their most used apps in the home screen, so that's a tie.

~~~
furyofantares
I am not convinced most people organize their apps at all, or even know how
to.

~~~
mwill
Anecdotal evidence: My father once saw me open the app switcher to force quit
an app that was behaving badly. He thought it was easier, so he now checks it
every single time he wants to switch an app. If it's not on the first row, he
goes to the home screen and searches for it, which can take him up to a few
minutes. He doesn't organise his apps in any way, and isn't interested in
starting, even though he knows how to move them around.

He just likes the app switcher better.

But he never would have discovered it if not for him coincidentally paying
attention when I pulled it up once.

------
greghinch
What a load of broad sweeping nonsense. UI walkthroughs are perfectly valid
for many apps. A lot of interesting software these days (read: disruptive) is
introducing new concepts for accomplishing old tasks. Walkthroughs accomplish
a lot more than just making up for bad design.

------
lnanek2
There's a lot of posts here against this article. If you do metrics on
tutorials, tons of people skip. Even if you don't allow skip, a lot of people
are just going to plow through ignoring a lot. Heck, lots of people leave the
app entirely and never come back. I've seen this in my own games.

Tutorials just aren't very fun. That's why games so often have to sort of
build the tutorial into the gameplay somehow, make it more piecemeal and
interactive. Which is what the article is getting at. So you can think of it
more as "don't make crappy boring tutorials" like popups and step by step
screenshots.

User studies with web sites have show users search pages/sites just enough to
find something that sounds vaguely like their current goal. They don't analyze
the entire thing and read every link and then make a decision. Showing a bunch
of images and a next button is sort of forcing them to do that, but it won't
stick and they won't like it.

------
danielha
Overly confident, generalizing headlines are pretty good for capturing
attention. But it does poorly at making your point.

Your reader's mindset is contentious from the get-go, and they're going to
want to prove you wrong if statement is controversial. It doesn't bode well
for your point if you can't convincingly back it up.

The true point in this article is that visual cues within UIs are great and
nice. It's a huge victory when you can educate your user naturally (see: the
popular Super Mario Bros example), but it just doesn't apply to everything.
Not everything is innate; some new things need to be taught. How do we learn
most things? We observe someone doing the same thing.

------
kstenerud
"Just tapping on the camera icon makes the screen jump, briefly revealing the
camera UI behind the lock screen. This combined with the ridges above and
below the camera tells the user to slide the lock screen up."

So THAT's how you use the camera when the screen is locked! I couldn't figure
out why the screen would just bounce so I always ended up unlocking the phone
to get to the camera.

~~~
justjimmy
Don't worry, it's not a really good 'hint'. I've seen people take the hint as
shake the phone to reveal camera, instead of touch + hold + slide up.

------
jblock
Extravagant headline. UI cues are the same thing as a walkthrough. They're a
channel for the designer to tell the user how to interact with something--a
communicative affordance. The only difference is that they're not listed as
bullet points.

We have to learn how to ride a bike and type on a computer. The user doesn't
know how to do everything, nor do they have the intuitive reasoning to pick up
and use something completely new and alien. While we should make them feel
smart, there's room to teach them and make them feel enlightened with this new
system. Contextually, a UI walkthrough may or may not be a good idea.

------
baddox
If you have to be taught how to drive a car, they blew it.

~~~
dasil003
Car is a much narrower use case than app.

~~~
jessaustin
Could you explain this statement? Do you mean that more people drive cars than
use a particular app, or do you mean the opposite? Something else entirely?

~~~
dasil003
I mean the core UI for all cars serves the same purpose: to make the car move.
The functionality of the car (lame dash apps notwithstanding) is also confined
to a very simple use case.

App functionality and theoretical purpose is by contrast infinite. Therefore
it's easier to pass judgement on car designers when they do crazy inscrutable
interfaces because it's generally a solved problem, whereas with apps there
are many more valid reasons to try something new.

------
evolve2k
I enjoy Clear as an interface which I find productive and rewarding.

I see the need to 'learn' Clear is more akin to the desire to learn keyboard
and terminal shortcuts. The desire for increased ongoing productivity offsets
the additional onboarding burden.

~~~
alabut
You're right - people get confused between a UI's learnability vs it's
usability. Just because you need to ramp up on something initially doesn't
mean it's hard to use over time.

Plus a new feature can get lost or ignored by people already familiar with an
existing interface, so it needs it's own little mini walkthrough just so it'll
get noticed. Here's an example of Facebook's mini popups focused on a single
new feature:

<http://cl.ly/image/3a3c1z2f0j21>

I've built wizards of various kinds over the years and I call them "training
wheels". The trick is to make it so they can start pedaling on their own
relatively quickly, rather than using it as a catch-all where you dump every
possible use case.

------
heeton
I can see lots of other people disagree with the OP, I thought I'd chime in
too:

Self-evident interfaces (i.e. lots of affordances, very little tutorial needed
to get started) can be good for people who just want to pick up an app and
understand it.

BUT, there are also people who want to interact with something in the fastest,
most efficient way possible. If a novel new UI can shave even milliseconds off
of common repeated tasks, a 60 second tutorial is definitely worth it.

------
Too
The problem is not that some apps use their own UI paradigm to achieve a
minimal UI. The problem is the kind of apps that do so.

If an alarm clock (second example in the OP) requires me to remember weird
gestures something is wrong. An alarm clock does not lack visual screen space
and the main purpose of the alarm clock is to set the time and then close it.
It doesn't have to look good or save space to show something else.

For a browser or a book reader it's different, there i want to fill the whole
screen with content as reading is the main purpose of using that app. If i
have to tripple sweep, double tap or whatever to get to the menu i don't care.

------
viseztrance
The authors website has a rather unusual button [ Gui work | blog ]. I thought
Gui was selected, but it's actually blog. If I would've used an iphone I
would've seen things differently. The point is that some things are intuitive
only if you're familiar with the system in the first place.

------
ghurlman
The very first iPhone commercials featured usage walkthroughs[1]... seems
they've done OK to me.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr-ZfoE4>

~~~
mikek
None of tbe apps featured in that commercial have walkthroughs.

~~~
kaliblack
The argument is that the commercials themselves are walkthroughs. How many
people would have learnt about double tap zoom without them?

------
philipalexander
Good article, though I think you should differentiate between types of
'walkthroughs.' I think the point is that you want the users to start using
the application as quickly as possible without being hindered by a
walkthrough. On the other hand it is important to teach users to use your
application... and constraining yourself to commonly used functionality is
dangerous. I find that it works very well to 'show' users by helping them do
tasks right away (a walkthrough) instead of 'telling' them how to use the
application and then leaving them to remember it (also a walkthrough).

------
yakshaving
Products fall into multiple categories based on patterns of usage and intended
audience.

Some products are daily/heavy use products which should optimize for the
expert user. These products need to be designed such that, once the user has
an understanding of how to navigate and understand the product's
functionality, they can perform regular actions with ease.

Examples: A Todo list, a weather app, or an app for sports scores and the news
on a mobile phone. A POS (Point of Sale) system where the operator has some
sufficient time for training [Keep in mind that POS systems are designed for
fast transactions to keep lines short and moving smoothly].

\--

Other products are used many times by different users, infrequently. These
interfaces need to be designed such that they're intuitive, require as little
handholding as possible, and should offer 80% of the benefit for 20% of the
effort. Additionally, that 20% of the effort should be possible by almost all
of the people who enter into the experience.

Examples: a photo kiosk at the local drugstore, a fast food ordering counter
with an iPad or self-checkout system at a grocery store.

What does this have to do with UI walkthroughs? Because the first class of
products are not designed to be _intuitive_ on first usage, they need
scaffolds (extreme way of conveying this is a "crutch") for the user to
understand their operating protocol. Once the user understands how the system
works, then they will be able to use the product quickly and effectively on a
repeated basis.

------
jerols
There are lots of downsides to walkthroughs.

They lack context.

They make things seem more complicated than they are.

They're often skipped.

People forget.

Folks think the screenshots are the app and try to interact with them
(seriously!)

So basically, they're not a dependable way to teach stuff. On the other hand,
they can definitely be helpful for quickly laying out an app's value
proposition and, in some cases, can provide an important layer of instruction.

Apps like Clear purposely sacrifice discoverability for minimalism and fun. In
some cases, progressive disclosure and visual cues might change the nature of
the app and a walkthrough may be helpful. But Phill Ryu himself admitted that
the walkthrough was a band-aid and I think we would all do well to think about
how we can do better in the future.

The point is, I think there is a ton of room for innovation in the space of
teaching UIs but we should keep all the chips on the table. Experiment, do
user testing, but don't categorically exclude options from the table.

------
olleicua
I haven't read this article but I find the title highly objectionable. There
is a recent distressing trend in UI design that providing the user with
options always makes the UI harder to use. This means taking control away from
users and giving it to best case devs who may not have thought of everything
worst case suits with corporate agendas etc. Computers are supposed to make
peoples lives easier not pidgeon-hole them into cookie-cutter lives. Sure the
ideal UI doesn't require instructions but UI design is hard and I'm tired of
seeing shortcuts. If you need instructions once in a while that's fine. People
take college courses in how to use excel. They can read a five paragraph
description of your UI. And if it tells them about features that they were
hoping to see that you didn't omit to dumb down your UI for them then they
might even like it better.

~~~
olleicua
Ok, I've read it now and maybe this isn't so bad but I do think walk-throughs
have their place. In general I think UI design needs to be more thoroughly
explored as a field.

------
justjimmy
Hmm…not really sure how I feel about this article.

It's using existing gestures and having them carry out different functions
that is unique to the app.

It's like keyboard shortcuts - every program's usage will be different minus a
few key ones. Or video games, some buttons do what you expect but some will
depend on what the game's design is. Of course there will be some tour or
tutorial - how else are we supposed to learn about them?

Double tapping the Home Button on iPhone < How did we learn about this? Double
tap? There's no visual queue on the hardware that we can double tap. Did Apple
fail?

I kinda get what the author is trying to say but he also kind of miss the
point of walkthroughs and tour completely.

------
ww520
I respectfully disagree. Nothing wrong with a simple design that deviates from
the "standard" behavior. Most UI metaphors including the standards require
some learning. Even the desktop icons need explanation to the users initially.
Most users are ok with training if the UI is simple enough to pick up.

For example, this app has non-standard UI but has very simple UI that the
users can pick up quickly.
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mhillsyste...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mhillsystem.dailybadge)

Clear and Rise are perfect examples of simple UI that can be explained and
picked up quickly.

------
camwest
We're literally betting our business on Max being wrong here (www.kera.io). We
believe the opposite, that the best way to learn something is to sit down and
have someone show you. Perhaps in the narrowly defined 'mobile app' space
where your app does 1 single thing (ie: take pictures) you can have obvious
design but check out something like Siebel
(<http://www.selectorweb.com/images/siebel1.gif>) or any sufficiently complex
software and you realize there are huge opportunities for UI walkthroughs.

------
andyfleming
Part of the issue is we are dealing with such a wide audience that this
opinion is valid for some and not for others.

With an app like Clear, I have 0 trouble using it and love the minimalist
approach and simple interactions. I have no trouble using the app or
remembering which gestures do what. Some older than me, and likely most all
younger than me would feel the same way (if they use or were to use the app).

When you are analyzing it, it is easy to point out things wrong with it, but
when you use it, it just feels so right.

+1 for real life user testing

------
shuttlebrad
Depends heavily on what you're letting people do, and how long they're going
to spend doing it. Games tend to have smaller numbers of "verbs", and longer
engagement times - for a superb example of progressive teaching, play through
the Portal developer explanation (available after you finish the game).

It's much, much harder to do this with an application where you can't boil the
functionality down to a small set of verbs - line of business apps are the
usual terrible example of this.

------
galenward
"Mystery Meat Navigation" is a very good description of what makes Windows 8 a
frustrating first time experience, is the synopsis of all the complaints about
it, and is why Windows 8 is going to be a slow sell for the first 6-12 months.

After 3-5 hours, Windows 8 is surprisingly decent, but the first hour is a
super frustrating adventure of swiping and gesturing with the hope you can get
back to the home screen.

------
huhtenberg
Ah, jeez, no, they didn't.

They might've invented a superior interface paradigm that doesn't fit into an
existing model. While it could be discovered by poking and taping, it might be
faster and less frustrating to have it explained explicitly.

------
treskot
Another school of thought says always aim towards making an unique UI.

If it wasn't for Clear's gorgeous UI. I probably would've never heard of it
before. People like fresh ideas, fresh UI too.

------
rock_hard
completely agree!

If you need to teach people how to use your product you failed at UX. And the
time spend on walkthroughs and quick tips would have been better spend on
rethinking the whole interaction model.

That being said, it doesn't mean your product is going to fail just because
your UI sucks! Sometimes the problem a product is solving is so big that users
don't care how clunky it is to use...great examples: Banking, Cars and most
Email clients for example.

------
PagingCraig
I disagree. I think a good UI is one I can remember and understand after a
little instruction (like with Clear).

------
pjsullivan3
The UI on your blog is wrong. The toggle switch to "GUI Work" is a touch
gesture, not one relative to web.

------
sublimit
The article's right, and in fact, I thought it was common sense. Like,
interface design 101. In the end, a graphical interface is just an intuitive
way to use the application's functions. If using the interface is enough of a
task that you need a tutorial to use that, it kind of defeats the point of
intuitive access. Just let me use your application and get the interface out
of the way.

Then I came to the comments and everyone was complaining. I didn't know people
liked hand-holding so much.

------
__Anon__
Games that were clearly 'blown' by this standard: Bike Race Tiny Wings Angry
Birds (1, 2, 3, 2000, space, Christmas, festivus, Halloween, whatever else
they make...) Jetpack Joyride Tank Hero Temple Run Cube Runner NinJump

I never realized how many apps on my iPhone was such shit :(. FML.

