2041

It depends. We’re comparing what appears to be a blog with some sort of community site? How much UI do you need on a blog? I’d like a list of titles. I don’t necessarily need to see every entry ever posted all at once. On the other hand, some sites need a little more UI in mobile. There are certain things on Amazon, for example, that I can’t see on my phone unless I ask the site to pretend I’m on a desktop. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the mobile version of Amazon is bad – I don’t always want to see all the information. Sometimes I just want to buy a book.

2042

Okay, you’re trolling. You keep mentioning Fitts’ Law for no apparent reason other than to confuse the argument, which is that touch interfaces are not ideal for desktop computing. Yes, huge text is easy to read and huge targets are easy to hit. No kidding, we’ve known that for a few thousand years. What you are willfully ignoring is the fact that blowing elements up to a size that allows them to be easily viewed and manipulated on a portable screen makes them look comically oversized when displayed on a desktop monitor. We are not children, we do not want large-print computing. Furthermore, as already mentioned, all that supersizing carries the direct cost of sacrificing information density. Less text displayed at once. Fewer controls visible, forcing omission or burying of advanced functionality. This is not progress. This is compromise.

2043

Hell, forums are a prime example. Utter noise. For example, tell me on this very screen, have you ever…

  • made use of someone’s “online status”, post count, or join date?
  • visited page 49 of a discussion? Or page (n) where (n) isn’t the first or last page?
  • used the “quick navigation” drop-down?
  • used the “Go” button?
  • used “Reply to Thread” versus “Reply”?
  • viewed the “Tags for this Thread”?
  • used “Previous Thread” or “Next Thread”?
  • Read the “posting permissions” or visited the Smilies, BB Code, [IMG], or [VIDEO] links?
  • Availed yourself of the GMT time helpfully printed at the bottom of the page?
  • Used the multi-quote function?
  • Clicked on the tiny report a post icon?

I can go on (I haven’t even covered the top of the page which is slathered in even more pointless crap), but why bother? I’ve never used any of that shit, and it is ON. EVERY. GOD. DAMN. PAGE.

I’ve literally used this forum for 10 years now, and exclusive of thread titles in thread lists I have clicked on maybe 5 things on the whole fucking page, ever.

So yeah, sign me up for some of that glorious old-school 1999 web design information density. Oh wait, no, fuck that, let’s make things simpler by removing all that infojunk. And make what’s left a lot bigger because… wait for it…

Fitts’ Law

2044

Also: Surely I’m not the only one in this thread who understands that you can quickly pinch/zoom to hit smaller targets with touch on dense web sites?

2045

Just because you don’t use some of the features does not make them redundant or worthless, especially considering the comparatively minuscule real estate they take up while still providing an available option. Note that the reason most of these options are missing from view on a tablet experience such as tapatalk is not because of Fitts’, it’s because there would be no damn room left for actual content!

Fitts’ Law is not some universal rule that states we need to make shit bigger just for the sake of it. It just describes the trade off between target size, distance and speed in measuring pointing accuracy.

This website is perfectly fine on my PC monitor because my mouse is much, much better able to hit small targets than my stubby little fingers. Ergo, my speed/accuracy navigating QT3 on PC as described by Fitts’ is equal to your speed accuracy on a tablet with fat fingers on a different site with larger targets (Medium, for example). Fitts’ does not say which is better or which is wrong.

I can’t argue that it should not be used in interface design, but the intended consumption medium should also be considered and Fitts’ should not necessarily be the overriding consideration - it is a compromise. I browse QT3 on mobile using tapatalk for the very reasons you mention, but that interface would drive me bonkers on my big screen - getting to some of those features mentioned actually requires more work than I do now. While this does not contradict Fitts’, it does contradict other UI design guidelines related to discoverability and number of clicks required.

As I said, this is all a compromise of design, that is why so many sites offer mobile and desktop options. But don’t be trying to tell me that sites designed heavily for mobile usage are the future of all website design.

2046

Yeah, not really sure where Wumpus is coming from. The “modern web” with its collapsible blocks and giant round-edged CSS-driven nonsense is far less readable than most of the sites of old, people’s unusual choices involving font and color aside (yeah, bright red comic sans atop atomic yellow is probably a great combination for your Dragonball Z fansite, younger me). I cherish places like Qt3, reddit, and the few other standbys amidst maddening crap like twitter’s utter inability to use more than 25% of my screen real estate for anything useful.

If you want to have an information-free, option-free, horrifically mangled stylesheet to slap onto mobile users with low-resolution screens, be my guest, but for the love of God, stop trying to apply that rubbish to real computers.

2047

I think the Fox News use of twitter fullscreen on gigantic touch screens is the perfect example of why one size does not Fitt all.

(and apologies for the pun)

2048

Sometimes the best tool to solve a problem is not obvious. IMHO.

This is typical for programmers. They learn to use something like “foreach”, and years later they are reading somebody else code and they see a “map” function doing something they would have done similar, but with much more code and more “parts that can be wrong”, and (in a good day) they have a epiphany. And they start using map, and that make his code much better.

Or you have people that come from other culture, maybe you have a Java programmer writting Javascript, and they do things in some way (assbackstandard) because makes a lot of sense for a Java programmer (like… they make objects using Classname.prototype.methodName = new Function()… ) but later they see people writting code that is easier to read, more compact, with less support syntax. And then this java programmer may start writing better Javascript code. Having different ways to do things make sense, because make sense to different people. On a GUI you can have hotkeys, a command line interface, icons and menus, and different people will use different things. The same guy may use a icon for 4 years, and then learn the hotkeys.

tl:dr version:
The people that have to find “Save all” in a IDE to save all files annoy me greatly. Fucking learn to type Control+S combo, is only two keys!.

2049

“Save all” isn’t control-S in any IDE I know. Wait, maybe Eclipse?

I’m more used to control-shift-S. Which is still pretty natural.

2050

I dunno.

Is the default for phpStorm.

2051

I have used most of that stuff ever, yes. Not often, of course, and I agree that the clutter doesn’t need to be on every page. I don’t think anyone is putting forth vB as an example of great functional or visual design. You’re arguing that McDonald’s burgers are gross.

2052

Sure they are. BoardGameGeek discussions were specifically referenced and they are every bit as obtuse and cluttered as this page.

So absolutely they are scarfing down McDonalds burgers and yelling that a dish from a fancy restaurant with a tiny artistically arranged bit of food in the center of the plate ala Medium is, y’know, a huge waste of space.

P.s. Written on iPad

2053

Yeah, we get it. You like web surfing on your iPad, so you think all web site design should cater to tablets. Just admit that, instead of putting forth specious arguments like “1999 design” (which in actual fact looked a hell of a lot like mobile sites look today) and calling what are in fact rather clean designs “obtuse and cluttered”. That sort of behavior is exactly what makes it look like you’re just trolling.

2054

Actually, I surf on:

  • Nexus 7 (2013)
  • Surface 2 Pro
  • iPad 5
  • Nexus 5
  • iPhone 5
  • Transformer Book T100 (Windows 8.1 Bay Trail convertible)

and I guess my desktop, here. But you’re right, touchscreen devices are a dead end category with no future.

2055

He didn’t say touchscreen devices are a dead end category. What’s the point of arguing against something he didn’t say?

He said you like browsing the web on a tablet, and you listed more tablets as if that were a refutation, rather than reinforcing his point. Hey, that’s fine, lots of us use tablets, including me. But we’re not insisting that web pages cater only to tiny screens, as you are doing. As I said before: sites with both desktop and mobile-friendly versions are commonplace, and it’s weird that you’re insisting that designers should cripple desktop versions because they might be viewed on 5" screens.

2056

It is weird that you are insisting there are only two views – 21" monitor and 4" tiny screen phone.

Based on sales figures, laptops have been the new desktop for a long time. Now tablets are doing the same thing to laptops.

As I see it, the point of my 27" monitor(s) are to show lots of windows of content, not to show one giant maximized web page.

Written on a Nexus 7. p.s. Fitts Law

2057

Some stuff looks better in a window. I once sent a CHM file to a PM so that we could review what I wrote. He opened it up and maximized it on his 27" monitor. My lovely paragraphs turned into few single lines that ran from left to right across the top of his screen. You had to twist your neck to read it. It was so fucked up. I had to ask him to make it a window.

2058

3/10. Not sure why you’re even bothering anymore.

2059

Wumpus is a lot less pleasant than I remember? Does he drink a lot during the holidays and get mean or something? :( JUST LIKE GRANDPA

2060

He wears the moneyhat of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow.