I can never remember if it's https://www.google.com/drive/ or https://drive.google.com/. For the longest time, the first link was just a splash advertisement for Drive with a big "Sign Up" button, and no clear way to actually get to my drive folder. GitHub has a similar issue, as do countless other websites that I use on a daily basis.
Digital Ocean is guilty of this. If you're on a phone, or a tablet, or any browser with a window narrower than about 700px, the page is so obsessed with selling Digital Ocean that in order for an existing customer to use an account you've already paid for, you have to click the hamburger menu, and then scroll... scroll... scroll... all the way down to the bottom of 75 options to find a sign-in button.
For a company that brands itself as being tech-forward and people-friendly, Digital Ocean should know better.
This is bad at even at 1000px. That’s 1/3rd of an xdr pro display and my most common window width now.
I thought it was just an ad blocker, but now I realize it's a "whatever DOM element I dislike" blocker.
I think e.g. Facebook does that and I’ve been unable to block annoying elements there.
Does anyone know how to make it work in that scenario?
That's a textbook example of poor UI.
On a mobile device, web display pixels (logical pixels) are not the same as physical pixels.
An iPhone SE's logical width is 320px.
An iPhone 8 is 375px.
An iPhone 8 Plus is 414 px.
An iPad is 768px.
700 is more like a wap feature phone
WAP phones were closer to 180px. I know because I built local WAP news and weather sites for them. Squeezing color radar maps into 180px was... interesting.
I always forget about this one. Thanks for ruining my afternoon.
The phone is not acting differently. The phone is acting according to the specification, which is that a pixel is 1/96th of an inch. This happens on all devices, not just phones.
From the spec:
> The absolute length units are fixed in relation to each other and anchored to some physical measurement. They are mainly useful when the output environment is known. The absolute units consist of the physical units (in, cm, mm, pt, pc, Q) and the visual angle unit
> 1in = 2.54cm = 96px
No one ever opted to not sign up for a service because link wasn't visible enough. If I'm sufficiently interested to want to pay, then I can find the sign up link.
I sure hope that’s sarcasm... lack of a clear obvious signup path is literally the number one funnel exit.
Agree! imo is just a blatant reminder that they care more about getting new customers than servicing their existing customers.
In order to go to my actual dashboard, I have to click on "Login" > "Login with Twitch" and finally arrive at the dashboard which features prominent banners to upsell you on their premium offerings.
And if you accidentally click "Download" because that's the biggest button on the screen then you'll automatically download the application so make sure you're ready to go to your downloads list and cancel that.
I just gave up and started using a combination of OBS (open source) and StreamElements.
Employee retention can often cost much less than hiring and training a replacement, but nobody worries about that until the problem is too big to shrug off.
I don’t know where they expect this infinite pool of new users is coming from at this point.
Others get so caught up in their own usage habit that they forget others don't want to be prompted to login when they hit reply to a comment (which causes a page reload and they lose their place in the comments) but would rather login up front before commenting.
I can never remember if my stuff is in Google Drive or Google Docs.
When I have a .docx file on Google Drive - will I need the Google Drive App , the Google Docs app or should I just get the Microsoft Word mobile app?
Will we ask the question do I need Word if I have a file explorer?
To log in you have to go to the register/login page but that only brings you to a register page and the sign in page is actually a small link on that page to get to the point where you can enter your existing credentials to pay the fees they weren’t supposed to charge without explicit approval before they turn your package around to the originating country...
Americans, please use your USPS. They always have delivered on time, often early, and without so much clumsiness. Especially here in Canada—they work seamlessly with Canada Post.
UPS and FedEx have been mostly headaches.
UPS and FedEx only, and I mean only, deliver on-time OR later than promised. NEVER earlier than promised. Additionally while UPS and FedEx say that there is a daily cut off time, this is almost always meaningless in that the first day never counts towards time-in-transit (which ,in terms of days, is already way longer than necessary from the start).
They both act as if they were to occasionally deliver a ground package a day earlier it would keep people from using their outrageously priced 2-day and next day services. Ie 13$ ground vs $137 next day.
Additionally UPS and FedEx (in my case mainly FedEx) are the only two where a package (generally on Saturdays) will get marked as “recipient not home” when I’ll check my cameras to see they never even attempted delivery.
both of their “guaranteed” time in transit maps are not worth the pixels upon which they are rendered.
Just forward to another page, and don't bother your current users.
Always this stupid question "do you like this app" and then redirecting me to the play store to vote if I say yes or the support site when I say no. And to make matters worse they keep doing it every few days. Once is passable, over and over is NOT.
I've started to give 1-star reviews to these apps. So sick of this behaviour. Especially many of Microsoft's corporate apps do this (like outlook or teams) and most people download these because they need them, not because of some rating.
edit: I mean I do the 1-star thing with the apps which keep asking. If they ask once I just don't do the review (If I really love the app I would have left a 5-star review anyway). But once it comes up again I do this.
In prev job, we had few ratings of our app, and avg. of 3.5. After adding the question, we got thousands of 5 stars and went to avg. 4.7 in a few months.
Of course the app should give you "I don't care" option, and store your answer to not repeat the question.
App stores should really abandon reviews, they're clearly broken, due to this effect. Instead, maybe app stores should measure user engagement, and rank apps that way.
But ranking apps by engagement is measuring the wrong thing: Some apps are wonderful, but are used very infrequently -> Low 'engagement'. A YC example would be AirBNB.
(It's a principle I live by in general: don't use e-commerce platforms for product discovery; neither the platform nor the sellers have any incentive to give you best value for your time/money, and manipulation is rampart.)
But I get your point. If I were to choose, I'd probably lean towards the higher-rated and higher-review-count app, but I would make sure to read a few 1-star and 5-star reviews on both to determine how trustworthy the app is.
In the case of a lot of 5-star reviews with little to no content, I'm going to assume they've either gamed it in the way being described upthread or that the reviews are fake, which renders the rating and number of reviews irrelevant to me.
I'll definitely look at some 4-star reviews to see what people who liked the app in general didn't like. I'll also read some 1-star reviews to see if there are any red flags/deal breakers like... the pestering behavior being described upthread.
This type of behavior is unlikely to succeed with me if I find out it occurs. Not everyone does it and "it makes me more money" might be a reason someone would do it, but it doesn't convince me I should tolerate it. I'm extremely intolerant of any behavior that shows disrespect for users and doesn't value their time.
This method could succeed with me if it was a one-time purchase and I was unaware of the behavior. It won't succeed with me if the app is free and offers IAP (something I tend to avoid anyway, though) or if it is a subscription-based app.
When I'm browsing for Android apps, I tend to stick to F-Droid, where I judge from the description and maybe the website. They don't offer ratings or reviews. Much of the open source ecosystem seems to be like this. You don't get ratings in most package managers and extension managers. At best you will get download counts.
I think the differentiation between commercial software (even the gratis stuff) and open source is telling. Ratings and reviews are about marketing, not the actual quality of the product.
I think I’m going to adopt the strategy of leaving a 1 star review saying “the app prompted me to review it before I got to use it”.
I realize that creates more discovery problems, but I think that can be ameliorated somewhat by making more use of professional reviewers and app-store integrations with publications like Wirecutter or Consumer Reports.
I wonder if you could get away with only negative reviews? Would a "negative review per total install" metric be worse than "positive reviews per review" (e.g. current ratings)?
I feel like the internet-pro's work around to validating quality of anything, strangely, is to find a reddit thread where people seem to discuss it meaningfully and logically.
Circling back to the topic of apps and ratings, I pretty much never use the app store for product discovery. If I install an app, it's because I knew about it from elsewhere. May be a professional reviewer, may be a friend, or may be a random poster on HN. Basically, it must be a human who I can be confident isn't trying to deceive me.
Or, imagine an App Store, but without search, categories, or any kind of discoverability at all. Let the community handle the discoverability aspect.
Plus, I look around me and wonder, "Who actually listens to the radio nowadays?" There are so many other ways to hear new music now.
You could argue that streamers, DJs, and other content creators are just as susceptible to p4p as a radio station, but again there are so many more of them, and regardless of who the curator is, no-one owns anything close to a majority of the total listener base.
Guessing you don’t drive/commute? Tons of commuters here in Canada still listen to the radio every morning on the way to work.
It’s almost an ancient ritual that; for the most part, hasn’t changed up here in Canada, and for those who do use streaming services or whatever it’s usually a combination of both.
There is something comforting about listening to the morning DJ talk bullshit in the morning, traffic directions that are up to date and don’t require you to look at a screen in your car, and often a fine enough selection of music for those whose tastes aren’t too refined. Which is a surprising amount of people.
There are sometimes even ‘water cooler’ stories about anecdotes from Roz + Mocha (our most popular morning radio DJ hosts) - it’s a thing - the place the radio lost the most of ground is honestly at-home and/or portable use, which was never as huge as its use in automobiles anyway. :)
Radio play is also still a holy grail for musical artists like myself, and I’ve put a solid amount of effort into trying to get each single on the air. It’s slightly easier to do up here in Canada due to local laws regarding a % of Canadian content that must be on air. :)
In-platform ratings and the constant nagging would disappear overnight.
If in a future system I could see that the app had disabled ratings from its initial release, I would assume the developer anticipated the ratings to be mediocre to poor.
At most I look at wiki or into the docs if the app may do what I want it to do for me, before giving the app a try.
I don't have any pre-judice against apps with no in-app store ratings. If I can find the documentation/source code/review online, and the app seems to do what I need, that's good enough for me.
But on the Apple or Google app stores, it's not the norm, and an application that stands out as "this developer has opted to disable ratings" among lots of 4-star and 5-star apps looks different in context, compared with a package in Debian, RedHat or Homebrew.
If it becomes commonplace for well-regarded developers to opt out of ratings, that's different, then it might start to look favourable.
I enjoy rating and reviewing apps, and I don't mind when apps ask me to do it. So your proposed solution would make me unhappy vs. the status quo.
Also, we expect people to stop a lot of things that 'work' because people are annoyed. Email SPAM worked well enough for people to keep doing it, so we passed laws to restrict it.
Once all apps do this, the app developers are back to where they started, but users are worse off.
This goes to show one of the big problems with app stores. Apple wants to have a bunch of apps that all have 5 star reviews, so you think everyone using an iPhone is happy and that all the apps are Just Great. You joined a club when buying an iPhone and everyone here is just so happy and would never ever think of leaving! Since they control the OS and manually approve every app, they can make sure that the apps go out of their way to encourage people to think the club is perfect. The fact that 99% of reviews are completely misleading is a problem for another day. (They probably filter out reviews like "1 star: asks me 3 times a day if I like the app." Amazon sure does. I have posted a number of thoughtful 1 star reviews on Amazon for completely flawed products, including objective data showing the flaws... and they just got removed instantly. Conflict of interest up the wazoo.)
Somehow I don't think this model would work too well if there were a competing app store with honest reviews.
(Not that I think you can ever have honest reviews. Everything about reviews, not only in the mobile app category, is basically completely flawed.)
OR Apple wants to improve user experience by requiring developers to use something that respects the “don’t bother me” answer. Apple is not the best, but not everything is a conspiracy
The App Store only shows reviews for the latest release of the app by default, not for all versions combined like the Play Store does.
So if you update your iOS app, there are no reviews displayed in the App Store for your app. To get some reviews for the new version, people show you the rating/review dialog.
At least that's how it was done at LOVOO (disclosure: I worked there). With every new version you'd see the review/rating dialog again.
For Microsoft apps, sure, rate whatever you want, but if you're giving 1-star reviews to apps made by smaller developers just because they're asking for a review of their app, you're just a jerk.
But tbh I haven't seen it in apps made by smaller developers. Only in ones by big companies. The ones made by smaller devs usually care much more about their user experience, if they ask it at all they ask it once only and not over and over again like Microsoft does. Reddit's app is another big one there but obviously they don't give anything about their users, they are super annoying anyway (like constantly trying to force you to use the app if you view reddit in a webbrowser on a phone).
But the ones I use from smaller devs are usually FOSS so they don't care about their ratings at all, as they don't make money anyway. And I'm much more likely to support these with good ratings anyway. I don't care about Microsoft's business :)
Still, I think it is bad practice. If I love an app I give it a good rating anyway. If you do it, please don't make it a yes/no. But also include a "stop bothering me" button :)
If I were using an app made my some small, scrappy developer, then there is no way I'd do this. It would feel rude, and I'd understand that they might need to scramble to survive. But Adobe? Come on.
The primary purpose of the app is to do whatever the app is supposed to do, so unless the app's only purpose is to ask for feedback then asking for feedback (especially in the middle of a task) is disruptive and annoying.
Enjoying this post? Please leave a review in the form of an upvote!
Furthermore I think asking for reviews should be banned by the App Store (whether Google's or Apple's) guidelines as to put every app on the same playing field. Reviews are best when they come organically instead of being gamed by nagging the user (and a lot of people will just respond randomly with a 5-star just so it gets out of their way).
We've noticed you still haven't upvoted this post. Would you mind doing so now? It would really help us.
This relatively recent (10 years ago this didn't seem like a widespread thing) trend of constantly asking for feedback or similar ("SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON!") is extremely annoying and I wish all platforms would take steps to penalize this behavior given how annoying it is (as you can probably see right here). It's even worse when it's about a product that has already lots of publicized complaints that remain ignored for years (looking at Windows 10 or similar Microsoft products).
Note that on iOS asking for reviews otherwise than through the system dialog is basically forbidden (rule 5.6.1). This method does not allow spamming the user as the dialog can only be shown a number of times during a period of time.
But yes I agree, it is so annoying. Especially in paid apps. I already paid for the app so obviously I like it.
Most of the other examples are problematic for me personally when I imagine what's involved: "Try it Free" or "Free Trial" makes me think they want my credit card upfront, "Get Access" sounds like they want me to jump through some hoops, "Get Started" sounds like the beginning of a long painful series of steps.
But I guess if those get 3x clicks, I must be in the minority.
I have a couple of sites where I allow them to use the product just like a signed-in user, but to save their work, they need to sign in. So people can play around and try things about before entrusting me with their email.
THOSE ARE THE BEST!
Yeah, been through that. So much fun.
It’s so rare to see that I thought wow this is it was really neat!  is an example of this.
At least one visitor was annoyed when they learned that they had to create an account in order to save their work and access certain features. They thought that the "no sign-up required" part meant that they would never have to sign up for an account.
Perhaps we could fix this by going with "Try app builder" instead of "Start app builder"?
In my experience buttons like "Start Drawing" are gateways to convoluted wizard signups in which I'm going to be asked to give out a bunch of informataion, possibly to find out 5 minutes in that whatever I wanted is beyond a pay wall or comes with conditions.
If that button is integrated with on page content and not in the header and the flow feels natural than I'm much more open to it.
If the rest of the site makes me want to sign up, then I'm going to look around for something clearly indicating that I can sign up or create an account.
I will say that over years in web design I have found that my preferences correspond very poorly with average preferences but I personally consider what they are saying to be an anti pattern.
An advantage of "Sign Up" is it's consistency: My usual flow is that I'll look around the website to see whether it's something worth signing up for and when I finally decide to do it something like "Start trading Bitcoins" might throw me off.
Here's another sign-up-related UX-crime however: Disrespecting your current users. A lot of services bundle their log in/sign up functionality and prioritize the "sign up" part so much that it becomes incredibly hard to find, especially when it's a fancy short sign up form that looks like one for logging in.
It always sends a clear signal about how much you care about people signing up to your service vs. people actually using it.
Tumblr is a great example of the opposite: They just present a "log in" page by default and make the "sign up" a little harder to find: This creates just a tiny bit of FOMO ("huh, how do I sign up? Is it invite-only?") and makes the user feel better about actually signing up.
Of course Tumblr is a social medium for teenagers and not a SaaS, but in general anything one is expected to use at least semi-frequently should not be difficult to log in to. A good option is to put the forms on equal footing or just ask for the e-mail address and direct the user depending on whether it's already registered.
Some of the ones in the happy medium seem good though, like "Create a Free Account" or "Sign Up Free".
Ars Technica: "No, I won’t install your app or subscribe to your newsletter."
It's drastically smaller than the ones which bug me about it, and no, it doesn't include your regional news site or niche vertical blog, and it never will.
It is zero for me! I consider notifications the greatest annoyance a computer can give me. Like, I hate it when a computer complains to me when I unplug a USB device without ejecting it.
Whenever I see someone saying Apple should “open” their platform up to that kind of shit, I know exactly whose products to avoid.
Gaming on it is a disaster. The store is full of garbage and Apple's subscription service doesn't have a single game I'm interested in. Everyone got too hooked on the "it's free but pay us $30/month in fake currency!" thing. I can't even find a friggin hex calculator app without finding 20 versions that have in-app purchases. WTF?
Then there's nonsense like if you have an apple watch. Oh you have an iPhone 6 and want an Apple watch S6? Gee what a shame. You have an iPhone 6 and updated your S4? Yeah that's not going to work anymore. You reinstalled your OS? Now let's spend 10 minutes re-pairing your watch!
Then there's stupid bugs. I had to restart my iphone after being on a month because Siri wouldn't work until it did. Even then - there was a long stretch of time where Siri wouldn't work when I was in the car for no reason. I'd just get "Sorry I'm having trouble with the connection" no matter what.
Are you complaining about a -6- year old phone not being compatible with the latest accessories?
Newsflash: That problems happens on every platform. What's the oldest PC that can drive an RTX 3080 without upgrading something else too like the PSU or motherboard? Does the Wiimote work on a Switch? Will a PS2 connect to a DualSense?
iOS 14 is supported on the iPhone 6s.
A device that's five years old.
That's much better than state of compatibility and updates over on Android.
My favourite example of this tiny anti-pattern is https://kepler.gl/
They offer amazing open source software for GIS. You can install it from GitHub - but if you click the "Get Started" button they will drop you into a hosted experience (no signup required) which is just insanely useful.
It took me far too long to figure this out, because I didn't think to click on "Get Started".
(Even "start using" would have been a huge improvement)
- no Picture in Picture support in the iPad app. So I have to use a third party app. I think it supports PiP from Safari on the iPad.
- when iOS 14 came out and supported PiP on the phone, you could use PiP to view Youtube in Safari. Google went out of its way to disable it the next day.
- then people found a work around by viewing in desktop mode. A day later Google disabled that.
- So now I have to use a Shortcut to watch YouTube with PiP.
All of their apps are 'google flavored', they staunchly refuse to design iOS apps which behave like iOS apps.
As a result, I have the strong impression that Android must just be awful stuff that you couldn't pay me to use.
A false impression, I'm quite sure. If someone jumped through numerous hoops to make an Android app behave like a fake iOS app, I'm sure that would be at least as off-putting.
I don't know whether it's arrogance (Google thinks that Material is just the bees knees and everyone should use it) or a deliberate attempt to show off the wonderful world of Google Services on Android, but either way, it leaves a bad taste.
But it took Google 5 years to support split view for Gmail on iPad. There should be a minimum set of functionality you have to support to be eligible to be the default app that goes beyond what Apple requires.
Yeah. I hated iTunes on Windows and Safari for Windows during its brief existence. It’s just as off putting seeing an Apple app on Windows that acts like a Mac app.
Don’t get me started about the old QuickTime for Windows back in the day.
Keep cancelling it, but they keep tricking me again.
Even if they never explicitly created a YouTube account.
In fact, if you login to Gmail part of the authentication flow redirects via youtube.com and back.
Probably most people are logged into Gmail or Google Docs, so they don't see the YouTube sign-up request.
Ad-free YouTube = ad blocker in a browser ... while that lasts :)
To preempt the question about content creators: I support the creators I want to support on patreon or by pledging on their website.
If you want people to view your ads then don’t serve content using a protocol that have user agents that run on my machine where I am in control of what they do, or at least if you do, don’t be surprised when I run user agents that do what I want them to do.
Google's alternative is to embed the ads directly into the video at presentation time (which also won’t work so long as I can fast forward).
You could care less who hosts it yet you care to type YouTube.com into your address bar to find the content you want.
In any case, if you think the company doesn't deserve your money, simply don't consume videos via their platform.
If you really mean it, simply stop using the service because the more you use it, the more they retain market share and get to serve more ads to other users. So effectively, you're contributing to their growth.
Live by your word and don't use YouTube if you detest Google that much.
There's no dignity in double standards.
- evading most taxes,
- offering 0 support to users,
- breaking the user experience to force users through their “app funnel,”
- shutting down independent developers without recourse,
- bullying any small fish in their path,
- conspiring to depress labour salaries, and
- shirking any societal or moral obligations,
...that’s just business.
But then when, having observed their psychopathic behaviour, I decide that I don’t want to be part of funding this evil entity, now I’m holding a double standard by accessing the content this monopoly has become the sole gatekeeper for.
Give me a break.
(Leaving untouched the fact that their business model revolves around collecting as much private information as possible.)
And Google still makes money off me because I can’t block their ads on Apple TV—I just don’t want to hand them money from my own accounts. They have become incredibly user-hostile once they felt secure in their monopoly position. That attitude completely turned me off.
Don't fall into the trap of ever trying to build for these guys. No money will ever arrive, only ever more obscure conditions for the money.
There are places where users will pay. Just make things for them instead.
> To preempt the question about content creators: I support the creators I want to support on patreon or by pledging on their website.
Every month, I happily fork over more money than my annual value to google. Only in one case is that money for paywalled material. The rest is purely to support content I enjoy. I would be equally willing to fund a platform that does not treat users and creators as cattle.
It’s true that many users have an inflated sense of entitlement. That has been created by the business model of offering “free” services in exchange for your data. Giving Google money now to get rid of the ads is rewarding them for building monopolies and then bilking their users.
Speaking for myself and not for the average user, I’m not about to fork over my data and my cash to the #1 beneficiary of the user entitlement that you’re describing.
Patreon never allowed porn but I wonder if there'll be a substitution effect with OnlyFans etc. We'll see. I just don't think catering to people like you is a good business. I'd stay out of it, honestly.
It has been encouraging, however, watching more and more creative people switch to a direct relationship with their fans and basically doubling their ad-based income when only a small fraction of their audience signs up.
If 1% of your audience pays you about the same as the revenue from the other 99% through ads, there might be alternative models that can work. Not massively scalable ones, mind, but ones that can still provide a sustainable living without turning the user and creator into the product.
I am holding out for those platforms. In the meantime, I directly sign up with the people I like, and I avoid feeding the beast, trivial as I am.
I get this for free using AdGuard Home that blocks ads at the network level. It's great.
What semantic nonsense like this WILL affect: you're creating a glut of disinterested users and firmly establishing your brand's identity as "one of those emails I have to delete every once in a while. I should cancel that thing or just filter it to spam". Now your metrics are blurry.
>"Sign Up" buttons don't work because You're asking for blind commitment and not providing any value
not solved by renaming the button.
This gives you the ability to create accounts on sites to try them out, while being able to check emails without paying for email service or getting spam forwards to your real email.
Makes it impractical for the provider of the service to block the forward without blocking Google clients.
I used to just use Mailinator mx records but providers wised up and started doing mx record checks.
I’d imagine you’d start with the newspaper as it was 20 years ago: newsprint with some black text on it. Then you’d overlay some opaque paper over that with some text in it that said, “give us your address or phone number so we can contact you for breaking news”. Instead of a close button it would be something that people would have to tear off each page of the paper.
That’s not all though. Each paper would come with an actual person who would sit behind you and quietly take meticulous notes on which articles you read and how you reacted to them. That person would quietly leave with the notes, take it back to HQ, and tabulate which articles people engaged with the most. Over time the content with the lowest engagement would be trimmed and those journalists fired.
This is the world we live in today.
They want $5 for some magazines now and there are so many ads at the beginning that you can’t find the fucking table of contents to locate the cover articles that grabbed your eye.
That’s pretty close to what pop ups do.
First off, people who give out their email easily would typically do so on plenty of other sites and your subsequent upselling emails are likely to get lost in an inbox flooded by spam.
Second, I'd argue that people who have the most disposable income or influence on purchasing decisions made by their company are also those whose time is limited and are too smart to fall for such tricks, so the majority of leads you do end up with would be worthless.
It means converting from a free user to a paid subscriber
> I am not sure if this actually happens
un/fortunately it happens quite a bit
I was trying to download Postman to test something out earlier this week, and not only is there no button on the webpage to go to downloads, but even when you download the app it still prompts you to sign up/log in with a tiny greyed out link at the bottom saying "Skip signing in".
If you want to really drive sales, stop with this user-hostile adversarial bullshit and start putting my needs first. For me, this article is still putting the companies needs first.
Maybe it is harder than I think, like, why can't the browser maintain an identity/profile and allow me to use it to one-click sign in to any website? But I don't see anyone really trying, only saved passwords hacks. Or it is supplied by Facebook and Google instead of your browser.
There's also the Web OTP API:
There's been quite a lot of investment in this space by browsers and also by the standards groups like the FIDO Alliance.
Otherwise there are HTML5 input field autocompletes which tell the browser what the field is for. Chrome is very good with this and you can fill out an email + new password in seconds.
This is one of the lessons of TikTok.
Virtually every SV startup asks you to sign up now, provide a ton of information about yourself, and then spam you relentlessly with marketing email.
Part of TikTok's genius is that you just open up the app and you're immediately interacting with the content.
2) gain market share
3) gain marketing patterns
Why would you need me to login in order to purchase thing? that's weird.
Above headline: A banner asking me to sign up for a newsletter.
As a consumer of a website, I infer what service is being offered.
I doubt I even bother reading the CTA buttons - I just know I need to click some things to start getting the service I read about.
> They're ignored
I don't ignore the button - it is the exact same pattern on every website. I'm just following a flow.
> You're asking for blind commitment
It's not a blind commitment. I want to try something, they need me to create an account. It's reasonable.
> You're not offering any value.
The button isn't offering the value - the rest of the website is. The button is just the next step in getting the value (see #1).
I just want a service where I can pipe all relevant live experiment data and it does the statistics to tell me the statistical significance and has some dashboarding. Anything like that exist? Self-hosted?
I don't need something that injects itself into my site or even sets up the experiment.
>Give, don't take. "Get Access" and "Sign Up" both lead to the same thing, but one makes the visitor feel they're getting something, while the other doesn't.
I think these are really important points. Provide something of value to find loyalty.
An interesting one is from Cloudflare, they have a call-to-action in their main menu: “Under attack?”
> I do appreciate the relative consistency with "Sign Up". Because it's de facto standard, I know what to expect when I click that button. Sometimes I want to create an account and seeing a button like "Start Drawing" doesn't tell me what to expect.
I wonder whether it might be advantageous to include the same option twice in a menu, once as "Sign Up" and once as whatever you prefer.
Though in the CloudFlare example, I'd tend to expect "sign up" to link to a page that was mostly about pricing, and "under attack?" to link to a page that was mostly about how CloudFlare helps with that.
In any case, the implied lesson in the article is to A/B test different ideas and see what works, rather than sticking to the default.
In any case, the numbers are the numbers. Whatever gets most people into an account is what it is. Many guys just fail that part: fill in a thing and we'll contact you. Yeah, no thanks. It's a $200 / mo product not a mortgage. Spare me.
This doesn't really seem to respond to the idea that you can have more than one label present doing the same thing.
I warned the encyclopedia salesman that I didn't need a reference work. He went ahead and pitched me. I humored him for a half-hour. Then I asked him, after he'd finished, if he believed me now. I'm still enjoying my time-investment.
The bigger and more prominent the button, the more needy it looks. It's gotten to the point that when I see that I just close the tab.