Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakear | Hacker News Reader

Response to "making users wait for an animation is okay" here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24031824

> Network loading of a new page is unavoidable (out of the control of the page author)

Nope, the author had complete control over how much information they wanted to show on the main page vs the details page. In desktop view they show the single-sentence descriptions on the main page, in mobile they don't. So they've forced mobile users to wait for the network load (potentially much more than 400ms) completely unnecessarily.

> Scrolling is another interaction that meets rule #2, it doesn't break the rule.

Sure, it doesn't break rule #2 specifically, but it does break #3. And, more importantly, it's shitty UX and has no place on a "Rules of UX" website, except maybe as a counterexample.

View on HN

> I'd probably prefer 400ms of a static screen to 400ms of animation.

The alternative here is no visual response to a click at all. I'm not okay with that, and I seriously doubt you'd be okay with it in general. Most people aren't (this has been shown). A 400ms delay after button clicks and scrolling and other interactions is an indication that your input was not received, and it feels intolerable to people today. The 400ms standard here was set 40 years ago. Today software feels completely broken if it doesn't respond with something in under 100ms, and desktop browsers typically do something within 33ms.

> the author had complete control over how much information they wanted to show

That's irrelevant. The browser does respond to your page load request instantly, with a blank page and a spinner. It doesn't break the rule.

Again, you can criticize the choices with your own opinion at a subjective level, this doesn't mean the authors aren't following their own advice. It feels like you're looking for reasons to justify not liking the page. You're free to not like the page, I won't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the reason given.

> Sure, it doesn't break rule #2 specifically, but it does break #3.

It seems like you're moving on to misunderstanding rule #3. Scrolling and clicking does not apply to Fitts' Law.

EDIT: I said scrolling doesn't apply to Fitts' law, and I meant that specifically as a reponse to, and in the context of the suggestion being made here by the parent: scrolling to find a new unknown target plus acquiring a new target, plus moving to click on the new target.

Fitts' Law has been studied on scrolling alone, for example: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

Extending the law to include the number of interactions is going to be tautological in the sense that if number of manual interactions is your "distance" then of course more will take longer. Including targets that are unknown is just beyond the scope of what has been studied and shown, I'm saying it is not really in the spirit of Fitts' law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law

Are you honestly, and I mean honestly honestly, trying to argue that needing to scroll then move your mouse to reach a target can not be thought of as a target being further away when it comes to Fitts' law and the relationship between distance and time to acquire a target? It seems to me that you are choosing to focus on the specific text used in a rule as opposed to the concept that rule is trying to convey. I don't enjoy arguing over that sort of thing whatsoever, so I'll have to call it a day and go back to spreading mulch. Good day :)

Your question is a straw man. You can think of scrolling as something being further away if you want, and I don't disagree. That doesn't mean Fitts' law applies.

Fitts' law is referring to a single interaction ("movement") with visible targets, not a general abstract concept of "futher away" that you can extend in any way and to any topic you want across multiple interactions. It is precisely because you have to use two different movements, as you pointed out, to both scroll to see the target and then move your mouse or hand to reach the target, that Fitts' law does not apply here.

Speaking more generally, there is a big problem with your assumption here that you can take interaction studies (or any scientific results) out of context just because you can think of it as analogous. When researchers have studied human perception and motions under specific conditions, you cannot assume the findings apply to conditions that weren't tested.

It is going to be difficult to beat this comment as the strangest I have ever read on here.

There isn't anything to be argued. You said that the scrolling violates Rule #3, which is about Fitts's law specifically. Scrolling has nothing to do with Fitts's law.

Scrolling absolutely has to do with Fitt's law. Not only is the target further away, it's constantly moving.

You should read and take to heart this comment by dahart, especially the last paragraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24032182

You've been confidently wrong about the only two rules you've commented on.

I either disagree with or do not understand either of your sentences.

The trend is unflattering for you one way or another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com