Simple as

> In a way, it is itself an example of the mistake of form over function.

It wants you to buy a book, not learn from their page.

It’s usually considered a User Interface design thing (making the site look nice) versus UX, however it certainly could impact UX

[deleted]

UX in real life is, unfortunately, way more complex than that. In the real world, UX is a constant balance between commercial interests, business strategy, user needs, behaviors and psychology. So, if you work "a little" in UX design, I understand if you aren't aware of that complexity, but there really is much more to it than merely being the user's advocate (although this is one of the most important functions of a UX designer).

Really good link I wasn't aware of - sometimes even just knowing the name of the principle is enough to dig in deeper. Thanks OP.

All I see is laws o fux

/me cries in mouse and keyboard.

The website is an effort to sell the book, which is available via a link at the top of the page, and promises examples of the principles. Now, I’m just guessin’, but maybe they should have made that link a bit more prominent.

Books are vertical interfaces.

Some people want something different from what they think they want, and most would not even consider that what they want and what their subconscious wants are two different things.

You want what you want because you're human and it is largely hardwired, that's why millions are poured into user analysis. If you actually knew what you wanted, Google would pay you 50 bucks to tell them and call it a day.

That's not to say that there isn't ample room for critique on modern design trends, but to reduce it to "it was better in the olden days!", just brings pictures of Abe Simpson. A lot of the interface designs we see these days are a result of studies that show us what works, so there is a lot of improvement. There's just a very low entry to interface design these days, and the internet made us deal with all kinds countless times more than we did before, so we just see a lot more crappy ones as well.

Ironically, I had to adjust page size/zoom level, which I almost never do, because of how hard it was to navigate and read it.

Adjusted | Vanilla

EDIT: And judging by the comments, majority hates the website design. Oh the irony indeed

[deleted]

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with that. UX is essentially understanding human behavior, to argue that it doesn't exist or that we don't need to take it into account when designing interfaces suggests that you have a poor grasp of the subject, rather than the subject being pointless. No offense. You've also worded your opinion rather poorly so it's hard to understand what exactly you mean.

This website always annoys me because of this. I've been working in UX for 10 years, most of these rules never get referred to by these names.

Your point about the "laws" is a good one. At the beginning of my career I thought I was like the UX Ranger, there to lay down UX Laws to the uninitiated around me. Took a few years until I realized I needed to shut the fuck up, ask more questions, listen more, and that in general things are always pretty murky and dependent on the specific situation.

Start with 20 years ago when software wasn't absolute trash.

Then increase the resolution on your WORKING SOFTWARE. Make sure everything is consistent.

Fix everything as you go. Any aesthetic choice that breaks a feature must be immediately undone.

Make it as unlike windows 10 or mac as possible.

I'm not using a tablet, i never want a garbage vertical interface. Even on my phone.

Check out the book which accompanies the website, which appears to include examples. Reasonable for the author not to republish the entire thing online, I think, and helpful for what it is as a website.

Proper UX work is grounded in user-centric design, so yes it is all about 'can the user do what they want'.

Understanding that user's journey, their pain points, and what they're trying to achieve is UX. Too many see flashy User Interfaces and assume that's what UX is.

The specific number 7 hasn’t actually been well studied or reinforced; rather, it’s the chunking aspect of Miller’s work that was salient.

This paper talks about how people just accepted the number seven as a given for forty years after Miller published and didn’t explore it further. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486516/

That seven is the magic number thing wasn’t much supported since it was first published in the 50s, instead it is more task-dependent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486516/

Always important to remember that a lot of laws of anything depend on the situation.

Pirates of Prägnanz is my favorite musical

Hence why UX Designer is a job.

In the UX world these “laws” aren’t named or referred to as such. This guy took existing concepts, like Gestalt design theory, and named them as laws so he can sell his book and related materials.

Calling them laws gives the implication that they should always be followed, but the whole point of UX is that you start with a ton of research to figure out what ideas will apply or not.

Gross

What are your thoughts on modern design that hides functions behind the faintest of menus? Seems like a minimalist apple thing

Is my wife prägnanz?

https://youtu.be/EShUeudtaFg