It's sad to see F-Droid using the now-standard design convention of categorically refusing to draw lines between things. No visual differentiation between sections of the UI, no clear indication of what's tappable and what will happen on a tap, no indication of scrollable areas beyond content being cut off. I'm willing to chalk some bad text alignment or uneven padding up to amateur designers working for free, but the design ethos on display, the thoughtless trend-chasing, is depressing to see.
User activity heatmaps over the last five years increasingly show that users often tap on things they want regardless of whether that word/graphic/icon has any outward indication of being interactive.
Of course the hottest of hotspots are always the high-contrast button-looking things, but I can understand the trend towards card-ifying or completely unwrapping touch targets given that users stab more freely than they used to.
Surely this should mean "debuff the design of the non-interactable elements (desaturate, shrink,...)" and not "crank up the interactable ones" or "make everything interact!"
Just like "customers keep running into our glass door" doesn't imply approval of glass and it doesn't mean you should turn everything into glass.
It's a race to the bottom. Users have to anticipate designers making inconsistent apps, so designers feel vindicated in their idiosyncratic and frankly user-hostile designs.
idle_zealot · · focus · HN ↗
fugaziboutit · · focus · HN ↗
Of course the hottest of hotspots are always the high-contrast button-looking things, but I can understand the trend towards card-ifying or completely unwrapping touch targets given that users stab more freely than they used to.
newsy-combi · · focus · HN ↗
Just like "customers keep running into our glass door" doesn't imply approval of glass and it doesn't mean you should turn everything into glass.
bux93 · · focus · HN ↗
eMPee584 · · focus · HN ↗