Applying conversational design it to all types of interfaces | Hacker News Reader

Applying conversational design it to all types of interfaces

blog.prototypr.io

22 pointsxTWOz10 comments

Please only apply "conversational design" to the few places where it's appropriate. I recently tested an app that had a study section. But instead of presenting the requisite knowledge the conventional way (text, maybe a video), they went all cute and "conversational" and put it in fake-messenger speech-bubbles...

App: "Would you like to learn about <...>?"

Me (exasperatedly typing): "yes"

App: "Bla bla 1"

Pause, "typing" animation...

App: "Bla bla 2"

Pause, "typing" animation...

App: "Would you like to learn more?"

...

Instead of just showing me the information so that I could quickly scan it, they forced me to type "yes" or "continue" every so often, and then, infuriatingly, fake "typed" the answers out slower than one reads, so that one had to wait for the stupid app.

I've deleted it.

What's so peculiar about bad interfaces like that you've described is how it's so utterly obviously not up to the job. It's like looking at certain websites and saying "I can't read this". My energy supplier prints bills with some info in very light grey on white - I literally can't read the text, it's so obviously inadequate, but every day another thousand below-par websites/GUIs/whatever are churned out by people who not only don't understand UIs/websites, they can't detect the most fundamental, evident, basic flaws right in front of them.

And, in many cases, it's even extra work to make it worse than the simple default...

Heck yes. Don't just display the information, let's instead un-fade into visibility so the users have to wait... Good point.

NB. these stupidities are a lot harder to do without jscript, which is another reason I'm against js.

I'm probably being over negative or misunderstanding the intent, but this article is vague, blathery and its ideas offputting and likely counterproductive. It seems to be pushing the idea of interfaces too far with:

> but we don’t typically spend much, if any, time considering what kind of experience we want the system to have

Yes, as the following sentence says, that is weird.

> How does a system react to users? Is the system friendly? Is it witty? How well does the system know how to converse with humans, or more specifically, to you as an individual?

If you have an interface like that, you'd better be very precise about what it's interfacing to (a virtual PA, maybe, a spreadsheet, never).

> You might want to perform what’s called an escalation in order to make the user more excited about achieving their daily goals

Oh please no.

Overall I can't recommend reading it (YMMV though).

Agreed. In fact, it annoyed me so much I've written two comments.

UX (and HCI before the rebrand) is of vital importance. It's a critical bridge between rigid software models and humans, and for addressing the diversity in accessibility needs. Articles like this are frustrating because they seem so divorced from the real important questions of UX.

Quote:

> What this article is focussed upon is the idea that behind every good interface, regardless of the type, is a good conversation

Maybe some UX is better done conversationally for some people (my personal preference is 'none' but there should be space for diversity). But all?

I don't want my computer to be 'a friend', I want it to be a tool that enables me to talk to my friends with the minimal fuss. The more it draws attention to itself, and away from the task I'm trying to achieve, the less it fulfills its job as a tool. And, like a hand-tool, implicating unnecessary language and getting in the way of muscle memory could well disrupt the efficiency and thought flow.

This article needs a huge [CITATION NEEDED] disclaimer.

Conversational design is basically command line, right?

No. That's not what the article is discussing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com