Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There was an explicit suggestion right there in the article what else they could do, so you don't even have to guess.

I read it, but I disagree.

Honestly I don't think it would have prevented this. If you're muscle memorying past warning signs the text on the warning sign isn't going to matter much.

My point was purely about UX, obviously there are technical solutions to this problem.



> If you're muscle memorying past warning signs the text on the warning sign isn't going to matter much.

Do you have any concrete evidence for this? A lot of people keep saying this but don't provide anything factual in the way of UX studies, etc.


Well it's exactly what happened in this case. The user got a sort of warning fatigue with the UX and familiarity with it made it easy to do without much internal debate.

But I think some other UI flaws contribute to that in this case.

Comfort with a UI means eventually you want it to get out of your way and your brain will do what it needs to streamline the process. At which point those elements intended to break the flow of the app no longer do.

A Firefox use case w study and their approach.

https://medium.com/firefox-ux/designing-better-security-warn...

Good discussion of the problem:

https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/44609/how-do-i-avoid-...

My takeaways are as follows:

The best thing to do is provide undo. Then you can reduce the hoops people have to jump through because the consequences are less severe.

Simplify the modal so the text about what will happen stands independently enough to be parsec on first glance.

Show quantified data on what could happen. Instead of "you will lose all followers" which is true for any app, display "you will lose all 54,318 followers"




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: