That was very clear and very well written. I got a hell of a lot out of it. I made sure not to scan in this instance.
To me it was all about understanding the limitations, motivations, understandings, and abilities of our users or audience, and giving them a chance to get what they need with a minimum of fuss (thereby making our site/tool/whatever of maximum utility).
I want to say I’ll read the book now, but I’m not sure if that is true. (I a deliberately eliding a joke about my own satisficety for the sake of you, dear reader. :) ) I will bookmark this page and I expect that I will come back to it. In particular I liked the practical and useful plan for performing tests.
> Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what’s left. —KRUG’S THIRD LAW OF USABILITY
I don't know. So nowadays I open a typical web page of some framework or cloud service, and what do I see? Stock photos, generous whitespace and inspiring slogans. What does the product do? What problems does it solve? How does one use it? I suddenly have to think really hard to infer that.
I completely ignore the landing pages these days and head right to the documentation.
> Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments. — ANW
The attribution there seems to be optimized for people who (1) recognize ANW as Alfred North Whitehead but (2) didn't already recognize the quotation as his. I suspect that's a pretty small set.
Sorry, not optimised, just satisficing: because I have started to always attribute by initials, I need never think about whether to spell out (which) names...
I get that one is trying to be clever and concise, but "Don't make me think" as a core value really sucks; there ought to be some consideration of "the world you're building" when "don't make me think" is a virtue.
(Compare to e.g. "Don't be evil." Has Google always succeeded at this? Of course not, but it feels as if having it in the background has been valuable.)
I like that you're thinking about the second order effects of this phrase. That said, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that your argument depends on taking the phrase at face value rather than core value.
I might describe the core value differently: know your audience and focus on their needs, not yours (showmanship, looking busy, ego, etc.). By showing respect for your audience/user, you're helping them be better and more effective. Reduced to a phrase, it means that the audience/user shows up knowing what they want (even if they think they don't), so don't make them suffer for it.
The advice is about interface design, which is principally transactional. It's not social policy so, you know, it works.
When it comes to Google, I think it's important to distinguish the Larry/Sergey/Eric era from the Sundar/Ruth Era.* Old Google was decidedly not evil. One might dislike some of their choices, but they weren't evil.
* Having been there during both, I find it hard to reconcile them as a single company. Changes that started in 2015 only became obvious to many Googlers in the past year or two. It's the late afternoon for them and the morning's hangover is wearing off.
I think a better (but less concise) way to phrase it is: "I shouldn't have to think to use your interface, because that's bandwidth I won't have available to think about your content." Thinking of this way creates a value proposition for the creator that aligns with the user's goals.
Revolving doors are awful. Except that they, allegedly, save energy.
My gut says that more confirmation studies are needed on the energy savings. I mean yes, they technically keep the building sealed, but they operate like a giant fan, constantly forcing the exchange of indoor and outdoor air. I would expect that they waste energy, not save it.
If HN allowed me to edit (can't because it's two days old), I would change "allegedly" to "apparently". Of course there are studies, that is precisely what I was referring to. The fact that studies have shown energy savings, which contradicts what I would expect based on my own mental model of the world and gut feeling, is what I find remarkable. Don't you love it when science challenges your beliefs? I do. I remain somewhat skeptical, but I'm open to the idea that I am just wrong.
1. The MIT study makes a lot of assumptions (which they acknowledge).
2. In particular, the MIT study didn't put much effort into carefully measuring real conditions, e.g. using a blower door test. I'd like to see a study that does.
3. The MIT study was arguably more concerned with the psychology of door usage than energy.
4. Other than the MIT study, modern research on this topic is actually pretty sparse. There have been numerous examples of old studies not being reproducible, so I think it's fair to want a reproduction with current materials and building practices.
5. Some of the studies I've seen did not ensure the weather seals were equivalent. Revolving doors tend to have beefier seals. In my opinion, that makes the comparison less meaningful.
To me it was all about understanding the limitations, motivations, understandings, and abilities of our users or audience, and giving them a chance to get what they need with a minimum of fuss (thereby making our site/tool/whatever of maximum utility).
I want to say I’ll read the book now, but I’m not sure if that is true. (I a deliberately eliding a joke about my own satisficety for the sake of you, dear reader. :) ) I will bookmark this page and I expect that I will come back to it. In particular I liked the practical and useful plan for performing tests.