how would you fix the UI

Forget about requiring approval and such. If you could *just* fix the UI, what would you do?


image from extreme tech

I would have an initial choice of "test" or "real" which links to the relevant options. (I'd also have some are you sure verbiage but that is out of scope of my question)

If it could only be links, I'd have two large sections with whitespace in between and the drill ones first.

This caused that Hawaiian missile attack warning.?

Need to be clear first on what's broken?

I might would do some tweaks based on my preference, but these hardly could be treated as fix'es as we don't know what if anything is broken.

Liutauras Vilda wrote:we don't know what if anything is broken.

The apparent mix of demos/tests and actual warnings is a big one. The physical closeness of links -which makes clicking the wrong one more likely- is another one.

Liutauras Vilda wrote:Need to be clear first on what's broken?

You can think for yourself without consulting a UI specialist for this here, I imagine. Putting the disaster button close to any test or okay button without a "do you really want to do this" message, is just plain common sense. I would do that also without explicit instructions from a designer or user.

Jan de Boer wrote:I would do that also without explicit instructions

I'd say that is dangerous. You know little about the system. It might linked with some sites crawling tool (used by the same users) which is looking for special wordings/phrases, sequence. Worst thing I think can happen, when developer starts deciding himself for a user, what's allowed and what's not and make decisions without anyone else's knowledge. I'd say instructions of a green light to give a go is needed.

Jan de Boer wrote:Putting the disaster button close to any test or okay button without a "do you really want to do this" message, is just plain common sense.

Which button or more precisely links you see are disaster ones and which are harmless? I wouldn't make such conclusion myself right away without knowing that. At least I'd question myself before re-arranging.

If I were allowed to do something on my semi-free choice, I'd standardise naming convention at first, would make it consistent. So it would become much more apparent which links could be potentially grouped together as they presumably related in some sense to each other.

Liutauras Vilda wrote:Worst thing I think can happen, when developer starts deciding himself for a user, what's allowed and what's not

No I disagree. Strongly even. If it is unacceptable it will come out in an end test or a review. For simple things common sense is enough, otherwise I can also step myself to other people and ask. I do not implement something which I think is just dead wrong because I got instructed that way. I am that cheeky I think I sometimes do know it better than the designer or the user. Not doing mayor things without feedback of course, but nevertheless.

Liutauras Vilda wrote:Which button or more precisely links you see are disaster ones and which are harmless?

Given that some links have "TEST" or "DEMO" in them, while others don't, I'd second Jan that it is pretty obvious that there's an issue here. It's not up to the developer to decide how to fix it, but to whomever implemented this it should have been obvious that a red flag needs to be raised, and that a redesign is in order.

Tim Moores wrote:Given that some links have "TEST" or "DEMO" in them, while others don't, I'd second Jan that it is pretty obvious that there's an issue here.

But one link contains DEMO and TEST in the same link. Other link contains only TEST. So in the former, is DEMO TEST is a 3rd category? (assuming Test and Demo exist separately), or link was named ambiguously and only DEMO or TEST need to be there?

That was my point I mentioned earlier - to standardize naming convention, so it would become actually apparent what is what. Currently I'm unclear. Demo and Test to me have very close relation.

Earlier, I wrote:Currently I'm unclear. Demo and Test to me have very close relation.

Every Thursday in our building alarm (fire) being tested. What they say over the speakers are: "Fire alarm is about to be tested, please ignore further announcements...".

Now imagine they say: "Fire alarm is about to be demo tested..." (not really make sense to be honest at the moment) or "Fire alarm is about to be demoed..." - kind of same. Or at least not apparent what is meant here and what exact differences could be.

Agree about the grouping of the links. But that would be my second step after the standardization.

To my best knowledge, after I standardized a bit and introduced some convention, as a second step as mentioned I'd group them probably similarly to that:
Testing ------- MESSAGE           - TEST AMBER      ALERT  - DEMO TEST Information ----------- ROAD       CLOSURE         - Landslide Hana HIGH SURF  WARNING         - North Shores TSUNAMI    WARNING  (CEM)  - State Only AMBER      ALERT    (CAE)  - Statewide AMBER      ALERT    (CAE)  - Kauai County Only Action ------ PACOM               (CDW)  - State Only DRILL PACOM         (CDW)  - State Only BMD        FALSE ALARM
To me is much more clearer now what is here.

Tim Moores wrote:It's not up to the developer to decide how to fix it.

Even that depends on the subject. If you are in a small startup company, there is often not a sharp line between designers, sales people and management. I have fixed issues like this quite some times myself. It takes a bit of guts feeling to know what to ask, what to do yourself, what could be important. But I generally think a programmer should not just be a brick laying mason that does not think and only carries out assignments. But maybe that is Dutch mentality? We are not very hierarchic.

Jan de Boer wrote:Even that depends on the subject.

Of course. I was talking about the example at hand, nothing else.

Jan de Boer wrote:I have fixed issues like this quite some times myself.

So how would you fix this in question?

Liutauras Vilda wrote:

Jan de Boer wrote:I have fixed issues like this quite some times myself.

So how would you fix this in question?

I would start with putting a CRLF between the links. That most probably cannot do any harm and avoids mis-clicking. If somebody complains we'll discuss it. I think that is just a detail though. The main thing is, if I see something plain wrong, I will act. No matter what the hierarchy is, and no matter whether it is my task or roll, or not. Not just in my job by the way. Also in my life outside work. Sometimes people are happy with it, sometimes they get mad at me. So be it.

Jan de Boer wrote:This caused that Hawaiian missile attack warning.?

Yes. And given that we are techies, I thought it would be a nice case study to discuss.

There are good ideas in this thread.