
The Obvious UI Is Often the Best UI - keyle
https://medium.com/google-design/the-obvious-ui-is-often-the-best-ui-7a25597d79fd
======
_0o6v
Kind of funny that this is written by Google, responsible for some of the
strangest UX decisions. Just look at Gmail. In the single email view there are
5 different toolbars, at different levels of hierarchy. Why is forward at one
level, but archive at another? Why are there two sets of drop down menus? Maps
is another disaster. Watching my relatively non-technical partner attempt to
navigate Maps is quite eye-opening - different panes sliding in and out,
Navigation, Places and Maps often conceptually colliding with each other
leading to all sorts of confusion (unless you're very familiar with the Google
suite of products).

~~~
krm01
In all fairness, our UX/UI design studio [1] has worked with engineering teams
of big companies. Be it Google engineers or others. The problem, almost
always, is that the designers try to design simple UX logic - Engineers try to
implement that logic - but someone higher up urges those engineers to add ABC
and XYZ. All resulting in an unclear direction, where the engineering teams
usually lean towards their boss' opinion. And, unintentionally, remove any
logic that was initially part of the design process. To design better
products, there should be a better balance between designers & engineers.
Adding one guy to your team to 'make this crappy looking prototype pop' isn't
going to be very helpful for your users.

[1] [http://fairpixels.pro](http://fairpixels.pro)

~~~
hinkley
We have known for over twenty years that most problems with software come from
the requirements phase.

We need to stop accepting that we are the guilty party and trying to get our
house in order while the one next door is engulfed in flames.

The problem is not in how we track our time. In how we organize tasks, in how
we deal with technical debt, long-term maintenance, engineering disputes.
Documentation.

Our problem is in being ill-informed consumers of requirements information. In
accepting it instead of sending it back to be done over and refusing to start
on anything other than basic R&D until it's sorted. If people aren't told in a
clear manner why what they've done is wrong how will they ever improve? And if
they know we'll do it anyway, why would they bother changing?

~~~
acephal
Holy Christ, I'm like a Junior Dev and once got into an argument with the CEO
of the conglomerate I work for after a town hall meeting about how agile was
basically only gonna accelerate how poorly we research "the problem space" as
I called it.

She replied that we weren't gonna do waterfall and that the data supported
agile as the company wide prerogative.

I replied that what I was asking for wasn't necessarily waterfall, but I also
had no other term to describe it, and so she shut down the conversation
completely by going, "I'm sorry, but the data supports agile. This
conversation is over."

It struck me at first as "What the fuck, seriously!?" but then I considered
she probably wasn't the one who made that decision or pushed it, but also that
I wasn't maybe being clear.

So it's helpful to hear that this a bigger issue throughout the industry from
a vet Ave not just local to the company I started my career at and so have no
other frame of reference

~~~
sepranu
No offense, but this doesn’t read as a situation you should feel vindicated
about. Engineering management is a complicated beast that the average junior
dev doesn’t see all the dimensions, let alone the nuances of. Town hall
meeting or not, the “CEO of a conglomerate” probably doesn’t want an
admittedly inarticulate opinion on what project management style not to use,
especially without a clear alternative being suggested.

~~~
acephal
I don't, and my coworkers laughed at me when I relayed that conversation to
them, I feel vindicated the issue around requirements gathering, and the
effect that has on development, isn't unique to my company.

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
It's like modern developers are slowly rediscovering things we knew when the
Macintosh was released in 1984. Maybe in a few decades we can have computers
that don't suck again.

~~~
projektfu
The Macintosh had most commands hidden in menus. The lucky thing was that
there wasn't space for a lot of commands. The writer of this article would
probably recommend toolbars, which were introduced much later, possibly by
Microsoft in one of their Windows applications.

~~~
greggman2
Hidden is an interesting way to descibe menus. The UX people at the time
called that making all options visible since you could click on the menus and
look at all the options. They also recommended the menus not remove options
but just gray them out if they weren't available.

This was in contrast to lots of software at the time which was all hot-key
based such that the only way to know what options there were was to look in a
paper manual.

~~~
projektfu
One of the motivations for toolbars (and the ribbon) is that there is a large
group of users who never look inside any menu. Many users do not know about
Undo. Many word processing users are unaware of things like tab stops,
automatic indentation, line spacing, and styles. I have known an otherwise
intelligent user who did not know that the shift key could be held down to get
a capital letter - they used the caps lock key to get a capital and turned it
back off after typing it. It's pretty amazing what is not obvious.

------
hacknat
So true. So many designers try to be too clever, and bad UI is the end-result.
Non-obvious design is excusable proportional to how-often I'm going to use
something AND how many steps it takes away from me. Non-obvious design is
really only good when it saves people time, but people will only put up with
time-saving UI when they are going to be using a UI often. For example,
Spotify's UI is a little counter-intuitive at first, but I use it so
frequently that it's okay and I know how it works now.

~~~
gnud
Spotify are masters at hiding information.

The only way to actually see full track names or artist lists is to wait for
it to scroll by in the 'currently playing' view - you can't see the full name
of the song before you play it.

There's no way to see label or release year. There's no way to see a readable
version of the cover art.

I could go on.

~~~
sushisource
Agreed. Spotify's UI looks nice. That's pretty much the only nice thing I can
say about it.

This thread I think highlights the absolute dumpster fire that is the insane
design choices they've made: [https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-
Linux/adding-an-alb...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Linux/adding-
an-album-to-the-queue-adds-it-to-the-front-of-the-queue/td-p/2910397)

~~~
ThalesX
As I was reading this wonderful thread on mobile, I got a hilarious popup
asking me to rate my experience and scrolling my page all the way to the top.
Hilarious!

On the plus side, their metrics will show them I now visited the web site two
times as I intend to go back and continue reading. That’s engagement for ya!

Edit: there was only one reply left :(

------
pidge
Sometimes a word is worth a thousand icons.

[https://blog.codinghorror.com/sometimes-a-word-is-worth-a-
th...](https://blog.codinghorror.com/sometimes-a-word-is-worth-a-thousand-
icons/)

~~~
teddyh
But I don’t know what “BT” does, either.

~~~
mark-r
When I saw your comment my first thought was "Bluetooth" but in the context of
the article, I can't figure it out either.

The Microsoft Word example is terrible too. The ribbon didn't fix anything,
there's still too much to fit on screen at once. The old menus and toolbars
were at least scannable, since everything lined up; the ribbon requires much
more hunting to find what you need.

~~~
Someone1234
The Ribbon is context aware, unlike the old toolbars. So if you're in a graph,
you'll see the graph design Ribbon, if you're not then you won't. This gives
users less they need to scan and or ignore.

Is the Ribbon a panacea? Absolutely not. But I'd respectful disagree with
anyone who claims it is "just as bad" as the old toolbars. They made a lot of
accessibility improvements and reduce the training curve substantially.

~~~
stan_rogers
I'll go along with saying it's not "just as bad"; it's far, far worse,
_especially_ when training. Disappearing things are _incredibly_ disorienting
to non-expert users.

~~~
Someone1234
It is worth stating that in neither case does it function without a relevant
item selected.

Meaning with the graph design toolbar, it would be visible, but do absolutely
nothing until a graph is selected. With the Ribben it appears when the graph
is selected.

I don't see how a disabled toolbar, with no clue how to enable it, helps with
user training or clarity.

~~~
osel
The disabled toolbar is easier because it still gives context and confidence
you are looking in the right place.

'This is what I want...hmm...how do I make it work?' is a far easier process
than 'I can't find what I want...where on earth is it?..does it even exist?'

~~~
CuriouslyC
And that waste of screen real estate necessitates other design tradeoffs that
are more sub optimal than the ribbon.

------
mrweasel
This is exactly my problem with gesture based interaction, especially on the
iPhone (I don't know if it's better on Android). The gestures are almost
always not obvious. There's simply no hints that their are available or what
swiping the screen in circles and flicking the home button might do. It may
get you one step back in your browser history, it may do nothing.

That would be fine, if gestures where complementary to on screen navigation,
but often the gestures are the primary "UI".

~~~
hnick
Even for on-screen controls, we're missing tooltips on hover which I think are
a crucial part of discoverability for programs on a desktop PC. You don't get
that on mobile (at best you get a 'new user tour', and have to remember every
button up front, or pity you).

Maybe one day they can get the camera to do some creepy eye scanning and pop
up tooltips based on what we are staring at.

~~~
Technetium_Hat
it is a convention in android apps to show a toast message as a tooltip when
you long press on a button.

------
mark-r
The most non-obvious thing I've seen in modern software is the hamburger menu.
Now that I'm used to it it's OK, but for a long time I didn't realize that the
hamburger icon would bring up a menu and there's a lot I missed.

~~~
jjeaff
Our app is used by quite a few non-technical people. And we are in the process
of figuring out something to make the hamburger menu more obvious. Lots of
people still don't know that it's a menu.

~~~
elliekelly
I've been struggling with this, too. I was particularly frustrated by it last
night and knew I needed to change the hamburger menu but hadn't really decided
how so I put a grey placeholder button that said "START" a la Windows 95.
Super ugly so I wouldn't forget to fix it. Except I totally forgot to fix it
and pushed it to production. First comment I got this morning was how great it
was.

I'm hoping I can find a better solution because I really hate it but at least
it's "obvious" now.

~~~
brlewis
I'm hoping a toolbar along the bottom does not work for your app, because I
think the Start menu thing is brilliant. Your users have trouble with the
hamburger menu that's common in newer UIs, so give them an older UI!

~~~
elliekelly
Well I waited all day for someone to tell me how awful it is and... I’m still
waiting. So as much as I hate it, the BUB (big ugly button) does indeed live
on!

------
capableweb
> session time increased 70 percent, and daily active users increased by 65
> percent nearly overnight

They never argue for why increase of session time is seeing like something
good. For the user, if they can do something quickly, they can spend less time
with the software. The "65 percent increase in daily active users " something
that happened as a effect to making the application more difficult to use.

"Increased usage" does not automatically mean the thing you are building is
actually useful. A really good tool does it job and then gets out of your way.

Also, looking at the "Polar app" screenshot, not only has the top part of the
application changed, but the lower menu is completely gone? Seems like a
bigger change than the one on the top.

At this point, I think the UX of the application is way more important and
worth doing user testing with, seeing the nitty-gritty of what's happening
with the user and the application. Maybe Google did this, but judging by their
UX in their products, they are all about those metrics instead.

~~~
indymike
If you read the article the increase in use is due to the increase in use of
features that were formerly hidden.

~~~
capableweb
The only example of actual increase of use in a particular feature is this
one:
[https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/0*24guSnnmXQu2zi3n](https://miro.medium.com/max/2400/0*24guSnnmXQu2zi3n)
(the Google Translate example)

And in that it's not even just about icon vs icon + text, but two very
different kind of icons... One is a snake (?) and the other one a pen.

Edit: Also, want to answer directly to "the increase in use of features ":
that also doesn't necessary means it's good for the user. Maybe they don't
actually have any use of it, and what they could see before on the main page,
they now try to find.

Point being, designing UX after metrics is a bit pointless, as it doesn't show
anything that you should really care about when solving someones problem.

------
buboard
Good that they are learning , because their designs are awful. I m struggling
to understand why they consider their new adwords and adsense and search
console an "upgrade". For example, I was searching the button to add a new
campaign for 2 minutes between endless spinners, progressbars and "cards".
There is absolutely no hierarchy in the page, even though the concepts
campaign > ad group > ad are there. I don't even fathom how they manage to
make such bluders on something simple

Gimme back a simple 90s design with a menubar and a folder tree on the left.
Or a command line. Those UX were genius. These new ones ... i dunno

------
teddyh
A.k.a. the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment)

------
carapace
Just want to recommend "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface)

> Jef Raskin ... was an American human–computer interface expert best known
> for conceiving and starting the Macintosh project at Apple in the late
> 1970s.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jef_Raskin)

~~~
jfengel
Good suggestion. I got to review The Humane Interface in its later stages and
it hugely influenced the way I design.

It amused me to note that the manuscript came in the form of double-spaced
Courier with hand-drawn illustrations. That seemed odd from a key designer of
the Macintosh, which introduced the notion of fonts and page design to regular
users. But he didn't have to do page design for this; that would be done by
actual designers at the publisher. He picked the interface that did what he
needed and left the rest of the job to somebody else.

------
specialist
Article buries the lede: do usability testing.

It links to RITE.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITE_Method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITE_Method)
Sure, sounds reasonable.

TLDR: There is no obvious UI. There is only validated UI.

\--

Bad management is bigger challenge than good design.

Too many times I've had drive-by management (pointy haired bosses) offhandedly
override finely crafted user interfaces, tested and refined over months with
real end users, forged by trained, experienced professionals.

Designing user interfaces is even more fun and rewarding than architecture.
Which is why I gave up.

~~~
exolymph
YES. And usability testing doesn't have to be anything fancy — DO USER
INTERVIEWS! Even a handful of 30-minute sessions watching them use the
application will have tremendous ROI!

------
SubiculumCode
I am all for using text in place of icons almost always. I read text fast. I
have memorized the match between these symbols and their meaning and would
like to capitalize on that learning.

------
bradstewart
Does anyone else find Hulu's new(ish) UI nearly impossible to navigate?
Especially on smart TV apps, but also web and mobile.

Trying to replay the previous episode of a show is one of the most frustrating
interactions I have with any piece of software. They fill the entire screen
with pilot episodes for a half dozen other shows, but can't find anywhere to
put a "back" button?

------
thomasedwards
What’s funny about the bottom navigation menu is that’s how iOS was designed
from the start. All the first apps (pre-App Store) and the first wave of App
Store apps all used it. Then apps started to get busy, so the bottom menu was
removed. Now people have realised if you make your app do 25 things rather
than 5, it’s just too complicated, and we’re back full circle.

------
robertoandred
Interesting that iOS has had bottom navigation all along and Apple gets
criticized for never changing things. Meanwhile Google adopts it after
ditching their own terrible UX design and gets lauded for innovation.

~~~
DangitBobby
You seem to imply that iOS hasn't been lauded for it's innovations.

~~~
zapzupnz
I don't see that implication. I mean, the article is basically Google taking
credit for going back to user interface design principles that Apple pioneered
12 years ago; whether Apple got its kudos back then has no bearing on whether
Google's disingenuously backtracking on some of the major design features of
Android's HIG and much of what makes the Material design … well, Material.

------
bitcuration
Seems this whole concept is also obvious. UI remains as a problem simply
because it's a problem pertaining and invented by nerds. People with common
sense don't recognize the existence of UI.

