

Don't click it - Website navigation without mouse click - Garbage
http://www.dontclick.it/

======
RiderOfGiraffes
Slow. Oh so slow. I _hate_ having to wait for the bloody animation to finish
unwrapping itself before deciding to show me something that wasn't quite what
I wanted, and then having to wait again to find a different hot spot to hover
over and see what it deigns to tell me.

It might be a clever implementation, but understand this: I browse by opening
up to 30 or 40 tabs, then skimming through the first ones while the later ones
load. I can touch and flick through literally 60 to 80 pages per minute.
(edited: I said hundreds, but that was an exaggeration. However 60 to 80 is
conservative when I'm in fast search mode)

You want to slow me down? Don't expect me to visit again. OK, I'm not normal,
and I'm not average, but I'm incredibly frustrated by this interface.

~~~
Dilpil
Your not the only that does that, I think most people who tinker with
computers professionally do that.

Its kind of funny: computer programmers browse the internet the way an
operating system does IO.

------
prs
Once you are in their site and play around with the navigation, do not click.
Seriously.

Their 'Hey, I told you not to click but you did anyway' screen is not only
annoying and headache-inducing. In my opinion, it could also be dangerous.

Reminding oneself of <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure.html>
from time to time is a good idea.

------
simonsarris
This was an absolutely dreadful and arresting experience for me. What was
going on in my head:

 _Okay, so I'm looking at this thing, and moving the mouse moves this mouse on
the page... WOAH._

 _What? The page changed? I wasn't even done reading the last page. I don't
even know what page I used to be on. The back button does not seem to work._

Things were moving underneath the text I was trying to read while confusion
was being generated far faster than any enlightening design. Page changes were
also very _upsetting_ , I don't want to be nauseated as I try to explore a
website.

And I certainly want a way to go back to where I was if I accidentally move
the mouse. A click is a commit to do something. Apparently on these pages I
can commit to doing something by merely moving the mouse, and there's no way
to go back if I do something I didn't mean to commit to! Whats worse, I had to
move the mouse to see things more clearly, because the page as-presented was
not as clear as it might have been.

~~~
jordan0day
Yeah, the whole time I was being annoyed with stuff changing even though I
didn't ask it to (by clicking, of course!), I was telling myself "They're
trying to show me how clicking has ruined my brain! They're going to show me
how this is better!"

I never learned how it was better.

I only lasted on that site for about 45 seconds. I saw some "aren't these
mouse gestures better than clicking?!?!" examples, but to me they just seemed
like roundabout ways of... clicking. Obviously mouse gestures can be more
powerful, since a click is basically "execute the action represented by the
glyphs underneath my mouse pointer" while a gesture can be "do any number of
actions irrespective of where my mouse pointer currently is", but this site
didn't seem to take advantage of that.

------
twymer
This was posted a long time ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=644218>

------
jaysonelliot
Exactly the opposite of what I would want in a usable "humane interface."

I have spent a lot of time as a UX architect trying to reduce the chaotic mess
of mouseover frenzy, and here comes a site that is all mouseover frenzy.

Gestures are even worse - they take what would have been an intuitive behavior
-- clicking, typing a command, pressing a clearly labeled button -- and
replace it with hand waving that you have to memorize in special patterns as
if you were waving a magic wand.

It's a clever design, I'm glad he did it - I would just never want to navigate
an entire site that acted like that.

------
torme
While I agree, with the general consensus here, that the design itself is
pretty useless in practice, I think that some of what they've done is kind of
intriguing, from a mouse intent perspective.

When I saw the label of a "clickless" interface, I immediately thought I would
constantly be dodging popped in elements trying to get at other elements, but
this actually happened far less often than I anticipated, mostly because it
was designed fairly well for that use case.

I think in general, mouse intent elements, such as pop up menus on hover, are
hugely frustrating on 99% of sites. Just now I was trying to close an ad on
the bottom of a youtube video, but the resolution pop up kept jumping in the
way. Navigation menus are frequently the same way, they pop over other content
without you intending it to do so, and then its frustrating getting them out
of the way.

Personally, I dont see the benefit of trying to guess what the user is trying
to do by where theyre hovering, but a lot of sites do this anyway, and with
some disregard to the side effects.

At the very least, this site offers some interesting paradigms for a clickless
UI, and illustrates a somewhat thoughtful design around that interaction.

------
webuiarchitect
Isn't that very (very) old? I remember seeing it long back

~~~
grantbachman
Yeah, it's at least 4 years old, I remember this from high school.

------
mildweed
Clickless browsing is just another way to say "mouse gestures". Yes, future
interface devices may not have a 'click' function and may be gesture-based,
but as for my mouse as it stands today, a click is extremely helpful.

------
Dysiode
I'm actually surprised people so vehemently dislikes this. While a click-less
interface may not be inherently superior to one with clicks it's still an
interesting concept to explore, which is exactly what Dontclick.it does.

I personally found the site to be intuitive; although, Areas, a click-less
shooter (<http://www.kongregate.com/games/Ridiculous/areas>), did a fine job
of teaching me to inhibit my urge to click everything.

------
codeglomeration
Oh yeah. Cause if you're already using the mouse to navigate it's so fricking
hard to click. And the whole graphics with the mouse and hand, just hides away
all the content, so I have to go to extremes to be able to reveal the content.
And I mouse over something else by mistake and the whole content changes.

This is not an improvement. This is horrible usability.

I thought this was supposed to be a UI design that doesn't require the use of
the mouse.

------
retube
I don't understand. This is just actioning on mouse over. I was imagining that
there was going to be some revolutuionary new site design/structure to
accomdate this, but no. It's just a normal (albeit flash) website with
mouseovers. And it's fu*king annoying. Stuff keeps popping up when you don't
want it to. There's a reason links are clicked, not wafted over.

------
flogic
I guess it's useful if you're disabled. Otherwise this is a completely silly
idea. We've mastered right clicking, left clicking, and double clicking. Why
drop that channel of information? The last thing we need to is a novel way of
decreasing the amount of bandwidth from the user to the computer. It's already
the most restricted path.

~~~
ehutch79
how is this good for the disabled? if you're unable to click, i'd have to
assume you have difficulty moving a mouse with pinpoint accuracy. hell i had
problems doing that and i'm fully functional here.

if anything this would be HELL for anyone lacking full motor skills

------
SpoonMeiser
Can't wait to try this out on my touch-screen phone or tablet PC...

...oh, wait.

------
marknutter
I find it incredibly ironic that I had to click the flash to get the site to
load.

------
yuvadam
The concept of click-less browsing is interesting and might have some
potential.

This specific implementation is closed (Flash-based), heavy on my bandwidth,
slow and generally not too appealing.

~~~
cryptoz
> The concept of click-less browsing is interesting and might have some
> potential.

I sure hope not. Anyone who builds click-less based sites had better be
prepared to lose _all_ mobile users, or develop two entirely separate front-
ends.

Clicks are important. They're not going _anywhere_.

~~~
hnal943
I think tablets are the reason clicks no longer make as much sense as they
used to. Clicks are built into our mental model because of a lifetime of using
the mouse.

~~~
riobard
Really? How do you interact with a touch screen on tablets? You _click_. With
your _fingers_.

Clicking is the fundamental way we interact with physical objects, unless we
figure out how to read minds later. Clicking with mouse mimics this.

~~~
hnal943
You do that _today._ Because you're used to the mouse.

------
tonycore
I love how the premise is to not click- but to get started you have to...
click.

------
fezzl
The only problem is that it is in Flash.

