This has noticeably worse info density compared to <a href="https://github.com/notifications" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/notifications, <a href="https://github.com/issues" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/issues and <a href="https://github.com/pulls" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pulls. Those old pages' list entries have padding-top: 8px and padding-bottom: 10px. This new dashboard's list entries have padding: 16px. Just why? It’s definitely more relevant though, overall a positive.
Yeah, I’m surprised at the negativity here. This is probably one of the few actual improvements github has made to UX in a while, normally when I visit I want to be looking for my things to do, not the social feed (though, I do like to explore the social feed sometimes, so, its not like its totally irrelevant, its just not the reason I go there).
Maybe that was the point, if its not front and center then nobody will use the social features.
Regardless, I think its hard to balance UI for normies and UI for techies, I think theres also a lot of brogrammers who might think they like being techies but their version of tech is lots of padding, whitespace, diffused colouring and not information density and consistency.
Personally, I have a negative almost visceral reaction when my tools change, because I learn my tools intimately and create expectations of where things will be- but this is also why I avoid tools which don’t have consistency in their UI too.
I get design/product people sometime that get all caught up in "we need to simplify" or there's not enough whitespace. Every time, the design/product person is not a user of the product, and the result is you ship their improvements, get blistering angry feedback (last time I even got the most prolific user and recommeder of our product calling me on my cell at 11pm) and revert.
> their version of tech is lots of padding, whitespace, diffused colouring and not information density and consistency
Exactly this. I think is speaks more to how frequently the designer uses the product versus actual users, and they don't understand the difference between UX for casual/infrequent users and people who spend all day in the product.
oefrha · · focus · HN ↗
dijit · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe that was the point, if its not front and center then nobody will use the social features.
Regardless, I think its hard to balance UI for normies and UI for techies, I think theres also a lot of brogrammers who might think they like being techies but their version of tech is lots of padding, whitespace, diffused colouring and not information density and consistency.
Personally, I have a negative almost visceral reaction when my tools change, because I learn my tools intimately and create expectations of where things will be- but this is also why I avoid tools which don’t have consistency in their UI too.
indymike · · focus · HN ↗
I get design/product people sometime that get all caught up in "we need to simplify" or there's not enough whitespace. Every time, the design/product person is not a user of the product, and the result is you ship their improvements, get blistering angry feedback (last time I even got the most prolific user and recommeder of our product calling me on my cell at 11pm) and revert.
> their version of tech is lots of padding, whitespace, diffused colouring and not information density and consistency
Exactly this. I think is speaks more to how frequently the designer uses the product versus actual users, and they don't understand the difference between UX for casual/infrequent users and people who spend all day in the product.