Comment by protomyth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by protomyth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes, but I think it's important to note that every other broker I've used presents the information in the same way and the way they are displaying the info is an accurate representation of the state of the account at that moment.

There is a rather large difference between how you do interfaces for people with training who are experts and the amateurs that Robinhood is targeting. It is the difference between a full cockpit and the interface you put on something like Garmin's autolanding system[1].

So, yeah, I'm blaming the interface people at Robinhood because they are targeting a non-broker segment of the population and need to find a way to put that information a broker would give you into the interface. This information includes things like "you do not own this much money" at a minimum. Facts are amazing things, but eventual truth might of save this person.

If you target a group of people, its your responsibility as a UI designer to make sure your interface is actually safe for that group of people.

1) https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/

> There is a rather large difference between how you do interfaces for people with training who are experts and the amateurs that Robinhood is targeting.

But regulation requires that you do self-certify as (to a certain extent) an expert who understands the more sophisticated product in order to trade it.

I suppose I don't disagree that they're targeting people who in many cases probably shouldn't be passing that screen, but I suppose I think that's the problem, rather than it not being dumbed down enough.

You have to actually go through a short process to be "approved" to trade options, including checking off a box saying "I know how to trade options". Maybe there should be additional warning signs, but RH does make it pretty clear that there are many options trades where you can lose much much much more money than you put in. Just take a look at what happened with oil and USO recently for an example of how stupid this can get.

Like I said elsewhere, its horrible this kid killed himself over something as transient as this, and RH's interface is pretty dumb, but if you're selling uncovered put spreads, and covering them with call spreads and you're doing all of this in RH....well you're either much better at RH than I am, or much worse.

When I applied for options trading approval, I got a phone call from Schwab with a quiz on some hypothetical trading scenarios, like "if you did X what would your maximum exposure be"?

On both RH and TastyWorks all I had to do is check a box saying I knew how to do it. I'm curious about other people's experiences.

For what level of options trading, 3? 4?

Sure, but I would not necessarily blame the UI designer since the breakdown could have come from a number of places: requirement changes, implementation differences, miscommunication, etc. I mean who knows unless you're behind the scenes? Just blame the company.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'd like to note, I'm not a professional trader or anything. All the other platforms that I'm using mentioned (Tastyworks, Schwab) are available to retail investors and are targeting the same non-broker segment.

Could the UI be better? Probably. My point isn't to absolve them here, it's just to point out that this same issue exists across most of the platforms. That leads me to believe that, while the UI may have contributed, it's not the root cause of the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com