Comment by AdamH12113 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdamH12113 | Hacker News Reader

[EDIT: I failed at skimming and completely missed the context that this design is for a habit tracker app, where making a checkbox the center of attention is a good idea. The comment seems popular, so I'm leaving it intact below. Pretend I was talking about your least-favorite UI instead.]

I feel bad saying this since the author is very excited and clearly put a lot of work into the "satisfying" checkbox. But...

This is why we can't have nice software UIs.

The process here seems to be to take a simple, utilitarian UI element -- a means to an end -- and turn it into the center of attention:

1. Make it big.

2. Make it flashy.

3. Make it slow.

4. Make it loud.

5. Make it literally vibrate.

These are not the characteristics of a satisfying tool; they are the characteristics of a toy for toddlers. On a deeper level, this is the sort of thinking that comes from looking at the interface instead of past it. That is an understandable perspective for a designer, but indulging in that perspective results in interfaces that just get in the way.

It's also a very artificial approach. A "satisfying ka-thunk", in particular, it satisfying in part because it's the sounds of a weighty metal mechanism operating smoothly. "Weighty", "metal", and "smoothly" are all things we associate with high quality. Aping some superficial indicators of high quality is usually not very satisfying on its own.

I don't think you get the point of this app or the check box. This is for an app that is meant to foster habits and the checkbox animation is an infrequent reward for completing a habit forming task. Secondarily the goal was also to win over the Apple user demographic and win a design award.

You're thinking of user interface in an app that you have some intrinsic motivation to use, and the UI in that case is just a means to an end.

The title should have been "Most satisfying checkmark". I was expecting an UI element too.

It seems I skimmed poorly and got everything but the important part of the background. I went from the article title to "(Not Boring) suite of everyday apps" to "Designing for Feel" and somehow missed "habit tracker app" and "habit" being mentioned multiple times. This kind of design does make much more sense in that context. Thank you for the correction.

(All I can offer in my defense is that about half the article sure sounds like it could have been a design doc for making bad modern UIs, but that's the fault of other UI designers, not this article or author.)

> this is not the characteristics of a satisfying tool

You should take it into context: it's used inside a habit app, where seeing checkmarks is center to the UX. You might not be a user but I can tell you seeing checkmarks is crucial to keep the users engaged, and so making the checkmarks the center of attention can be very helpful. I personally really liked it. Learning apps (Duolingo, Coursera) should all adopt this approach (or at least allow users to opt into it).

I use loop habit tracker, and the checkboxes are regular checkboxes: https://loophabits.org/screenshots/1.png.

Even in context, consider a user may want to check multiple habits off at one time (I've done 3 things, now recording those in the app), and stopping for each one to see this LONG animation would be problematic for me. (caveat - I'm not familiar enough with the app to know if it plays each time or what.)

If it does play a lot, it'd be annoying enough that I'd be looking for a new app or looking to see if there is an accessibility setting to remove animations.

That's why I said "opt into it". Plenty of video games also put on animations by default and allow you to "opt out" easily.

I had the exact same reaction. This needs to be about 3 times faster in order for me to not to be annoyed by it, and that's why gamifying things that aren't games is usually obnoxious. If this is an interface for an actual game, meant to entertain, fine. If this was in some productivity software, it would annoy me at first, and then really piss me off after the 10th time I saw it or had to get past it to do what I want.

It reminds of Apple's Siri and its grating cuteness in failure modes. Or of the Wordpress login box that gives me a cute shaking animation if the input is wrong.

From the article:

> Jason Yuan has promoted the idea of “fidgetability” where, similar to a key fob or lighter, digital actions can be designed to feel satisfying.

I love fidgeting. I used to have a switch tumbler in my pocket just to turn it off / on when I didn't have anything to do with my hands. I think I would've enjoyed a checkbox that allowed you to drag it slightly to check it instead of just tapping. You can't add "fidgetability" with just flashy animations and sfx. You need something to do with your thumb: turn it on and off, feel the thing respond, turn it half way, try to keep it there before it snaps into place, that kind of thing.

I read an article some time ago that argued phones are the worst tools for our hands. While everything else is designed to use the entire hand or at least a few fingers while providing subtle feedback on every action that requires us to exercise multiple muscles to control properly, the phone only requires your thumb.

Thats why I love the AirPods case. It is soo satisfying to play around with the lid, even after two years of doing so

My airpods have been ran over by a car, and they've been through a full laundry machine wash cycle and they still work, but I don't play with the lid because I'm afraid I'l break the hinge.

Mine have been through a full launndry cycle as well and still work. Don't worry the hinge is very solid, I'm regularly putting quite a lot of stress on it :D

I have a couple of hobbies or whatever you like to call them where it's a bit of a cliché that people mistake 'necessary and dispensable' for indispensable. There are activities that you need to have done, but as you grow you should not be doing them all the time. Maybe once in a while, just to keep the myelin warm, but not in public, unless you're mentoring someone at the time.

Some days I look around and wonder how many activities in software development are better off being embraced tightly and then bid a fond farewell, and instead we cargo cult them.

Edit to add: Not unlike having a childhood. Without a proper one you're a mess. But not letting it go makes you into a bigger mess.

I came here looking to suggest a "ker-chunk", and am pleasantly surprised that a "ka-thunk" has already been mentioned

Design is often solutions looking for problems (that probably don’t exist). But it is very humanistic to overly design things and give them character.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com