It has been the sensible order of choosing the source account then choosing the destination account. Now they’ve switched it to where you have to first choose the destination account then choose the source account.

I understand this shouldn’t be a big deal but my brain just absolutely rejects it and even knowing full well they’ve made the change on several occasions I’ve moved money the wrong way. Sometimes without even realizing it for days.

I don’t think this is simply a muscle memory thing that I’ll eventually get used to; I feel like it’s fundamentally nonsensical and I’m curious if it’s just me. Or am I just being a stubborn old man stuck in his ways?

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    They don’t teach material design or something, they teach you to look at the interfaces people use the most and copy the shorthand and general layout

    Then they teach you what not to do… Don’t make buttons appear and disappear, don’t make interactions move things around… These are basically universally confusing

    They get into a bit of color theory, making certain actions “weighty” by adding loading, and all sorts of other techniques

    But the most important piece is figuring out what the main use cases are, and making the tradeoffs to make the experience as frictionless as possible. Stuff like minimizing clicks, piching things by default, hiding unnecessary information, etc

    It’s like teaching art. You put labels on concepts and make them practice picking apart the composition so they can understand the individual elements at play and how they fit together

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I get the gist. I’ll use myself as an example in an attempt to make my point. I hate, Hate, HATE the very reduction of “complication” you’re referring to. Dumbed-down interfaces that contain no “unnecessary information” drive me nuts. What’s unimportant information to you may be important to me.

      By all means, design for the “most common use cases,” but the buck stops right there FAR too often anymore. There’s minimal, if any, customizability, alternate layouts that are more information-dense, or just any accommodation for those that didn’t fit that most common use case. It’s dumbing things down for those who don’t want to learn anything, or use their device to it’s fullest capabilities, and those of us who prefer to use our brain just get ignored and have to suffer.

      I get the desire to make things approachable for non-technical people, but if that’s all that ever happens then they’ll never learn anything more advanced than that. So our society gets more and more coddled, and incapable of doing things for themselves - making them all the more dependent upon the tech oligarchs, which is, of course, more profitable for them and more power handed over to them.

      No thanks.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Well, that’s just capitalism for you. Maintaining code takes man hours, so of course the minute they had the slightest excuse to reduce code and fire people, that became the norm

        It’s profit dictating style basically

        • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          I’m aware why it happens, but if even you are aware then that means you know what I’ve said is true. As such, it seems you also should know that you’re not designing for the best interface, but just the one that the largest proportion of the masses are able to use well enough to win out over alternatives in a quest for market domination. Dumbed-down wins in the numbers game, but isn’t necessarily the “best” interface.

          Another part in the numbers game is cost. As someone reminded me recently, the “best” solutions rarely win over ones that are “good enough,” but cost the end users less. Technology’s history is veritably littered with superior options that lost out against their competition because of such cost differences. This is part of how Android became so dominant over the objectively much easier to use (earlier in, anyway - things have since improved somewhat) iOS. Google included almost everything one might need for free - all you had to pay was your privacy.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Definitely… But you can both streamline an interface for the masses without taking away from power users. OSX was a pretty good example of this - they kept a simple veneer, but if you dug a little deeper you used to be able to do some pretty advanced things and configure it all just how you like it

            It just takes more time and effort, so it’s becoming rare

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Sorry friend, but it’s only going to get worse for the foreseeable future

                I’m with you lamenting it though, I’m very frustrated too. Everything is breaking, for the stupidest reasons…

                For decades now, I’ve joked that the Internet is just a fad… But recently I realized, we might just see it die