[HN Gopher] Don't make customers hunt for the Sign In button on ...
___________________________________________________________________
Don't make customers hunt for the Sign In button on your website
Author : rfelix2121
Score : 400 points
Date : 2021-05-03 01:01 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.stunning.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.stunning.co)
| joshxyz wrote:
| Fucking digitalocean.com geez
| zero_deg_kevin wrote:
| I find it hilarious that this article is on a SaaS site's blog
| and has no sign-in button. Maybe I missed the "why this doesn't
| apply to this site" portion of TFA, though.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Their blog has no sign-in button. Their main page
| (https://stunning.co/) does.
| usrusr wrote:
| A tiny button is far from the worst: try logging into your paid
| account on the mobile website of a service that not only has a
| free tier but also an app! (I'm looking at you, Strava)
| wruza wrote:
| Another annoyance is when you can't access their landing page
| until logging out (like visiting example.com redirects or just
| hyperscripts you into the dashboard if a session cookie exists).
| You log out, look for the info and then search for a login div
| again, where you have to spend another minute differentiating
| between the "bring on", "chime in", "lay along", "sing in",
| "growl at", "give up" and other low-contrast cretinisms in place
| where explicit login and register links should be.
| solipsism wrote:
| Literally never had this problem.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Some services make the register button easy to find but you have
| to hunt for the sign in button. Paying customers matter as much
| as prospective ones!
| nickjj wrote:
| I'm surprised so many folks are saying DigitalOcean is bad at
| this in the comments.
|
| Their home page on a desktop has 2 equally sized sign in and sign
| up buttons in the top right. The sign up button is filled and the
| sign in button is outlined. In mobile view it's pretty bad, they
| still show both buttons side by side but they're buried under a
| hundred miles of product links.
|
| Besides the buttons being pushed so far down on mobile, is that
| design really hard to find the sign in link -- specifically on
| desktop?
|
| Interestingly enough Stripe has only a sign in button in their
| nav bar https://stripe.com/ for non-logged in potential
| customers. I just checked with an incognito window. I guess they
| determined users who sign up mostly come from the main area of
| their home page or through another page reached from their nav
| menu (products, use cases, etc.), not so much from a sign up
| button near the sign in button.
| thomasahle wrote:
| If you shrink the website to half your screen width, the "Sign
| In" button goes away, and there is only "Sign Up".
|
| You can get to "Sign In" by clicking the burger menu and scroll
| sufficiently far down, or by searching. You can't find it by
| simply searching on the front page, or by just clicking the
| burger menu. I guess that's what people mean by "having to go
| hunting for the sign in button".
| nickjj wrote:
| > If you shrink the website to half your screen width, the
| "Sign In" button goes away, and there is only "Sign Up".
|
| Interesting, I don't see that here. I wonder if they're A / B
| testing layouts and my IP is locked into a specific choice.
|
| If I open the page in Chrome or Firefox I see both buttons
| side by side and then if I slowly make the window smaller
| (starting at 2560 width btw), it eventually gets to the point
| where both buttons disappear inside of the hamburger menu
| when the buttons get too close to the left nav. The sign up
| button is never visible on its own.
|
| Which browser do you use?
| thomasahle wrote:
| One of the Sign Up buttons go into the burger menu, but the
| really big one stays on the front page:
| https://imgur.com/0bFzIiB
| batch12 wrote:
| I actually thought of DigitalOcean first when I saw the title
| of the article. I somehow always end up clicking sign up
| instead of sign in.
| Softcadbury wrote:
| It's even worse when they use terms sign in and sign up, like
| Github! English is not my native language and it always confuses
| me.
| XargonEnder wrote:
| English is my native language and this annoys me because it
| slows me down
| userbinator wrote:
| English is my native language and I still call it "login" and
| "register", the words which were originally used and which I do
| not see any reason to change.
| thrower123 wrote:
| GitHub is awful for this. If you're not signed in, the whole
| page is taken up with a giant signup UI, then in the top right
| there is another signup button. Next to the signup button,
| there is a sign-in button, but it has no border and is so
| deemphasized that if you don't know it's there it blends into
| the other useless links in the top bar.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| I end up regularly on the sign up page on github by mistake
| because of this.
| [deleted]
| Tade0 wrote:
| Yeah, what ever happened to Create account/Register and Log in?
|
| Why have two very different options with almost the same label?
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Heh, there was a time when Microsoft's Polish translators
| (who I'm mildly convinced are robots in disguise) decided
| "Sign in" should be translated as ,,Zarejestruj". Which is
| what everyone else called the "new account" button. They
| managed to fix it since then to a much more reasonable and
| much less confusing ,,Zaloguj sie".
| Dort wrote:
| Translators for the Dutch version of Windows 10 are
| definitely robots. For example, in the save webpage dialog
| of Edge, they translated "Webpage, complete" to "Webpagina,
| voltooid". Voltooid means completed, as in a completed
| task. The correct translation would have been "Webpagina
| (volledig)".
|
| Similar errors are often found throughout programs new with
| Windows 10 and sentence structures are directly copied from
| English. I have never found a single error in Windows XP/7.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Oh, I remember that incident. Since then I've become
| suspicious of any translations from English to Polish.
|
| Especially given that I have some insider knowledge on how
| large publishers translate tech books and the way they do
| it is, in one word, awful.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| >who I'm mildly convinced are robots in disguise
|
| I think Windows translators are real humans, because
| quality is much better than whatever Bing Translator spits
| out (seriously, who thought it was good idea to
| automatically redirect to Bing-translated MSDN pages), but
| translated completely without any context. For example,
| task manager now have RAM "Form factor" translated as
| "Wspolczynnik postaci"...
| thepra wrote:
| I make it more explicit than anything >_>
| https://quick.collanon.app
| alvarlagerlof wrote:
| Your website takes a lot of time to load
| hactually wrote:
| Wow... Yeah, gave up at 26 seconds.
|
| Ooft.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| AWS and recently Cloudflare too
| scarface74 wrote:
| As an AWS consultant, I work with a lot of client companies and
| I'm often watching a screen share while they are navigating
| through the console. I haven't seen one yet that actually logs
| in to AWS directly and not use some type of SSO solution.
| jasfi wrote:
| Could the problem be "don't make me hunt for the x button"? After
| all, not every button can be highlighted.
| ajmadesc wrote:
| No lol. For services, Try me, login, sign up. Three buttons.
| Not that hard
| zackkrida wrote:
| Totally agree with the diagnosis of the problem but not the
| solution. I don't think switching the color is good UX--if I know
| the top of the page has a big green button', I'm not going to
| expect that button to have conditional behavior.
| cgriswald wrote:
| I think the solution has a more fundamental flaw. Reasons why
| people are no longer logged in:
|
| 1. The website timed them out.
|
| 2. They pressed "log out."
|
| 3. They/their browser deleted their cookies.
|
| 4. They are on a different device.
|
| 5. They are in private/incognito mode in a new tab or window
| (say after clicking a link to confirm their email address at
| signup).
|
| To the extent the solution works at all it only works for (1)
| and (2).
| smcl wrote:
| Would it not be better if they found a different way to
| differentiate between the "Sign In" and "Try it FREE" buttons
| altogether? By using that cookie approach they've just introduced
| some inconsistency that may not be clear to users - e.g. you're
| on a different device (or an in-private window, or you cleared
| your cookies, or on a browser you don't normally use, etc) and
| you click the highlighted button and it takes you to a sign-up
| form instead of a login prompt.
|
| While they _say_ "Don't make customers hunt for the Sign In
| button...", they've _implemented_ "Sometimes make customers hunt
| for the Sign In button..." which is arguably worse. It's good
| that someone else has identified this as a problem (it's annoyed
| me for a while) I just don't think this solution knocks it out of
| the park.
| SLWW wrote:
| This is about the most agreeable HN post I've seen in months.
| WHY? Why do they do this? Why does every single "new" and
| "cutting-edge" idea has a website that takes me more then 30
| seconds (absolute worst case) to find the very thing I need to
| login?
|
| Why do companies like Twilio make me put my email in first and
| hit the arrow before i can even type in my password? (it confuses
| me and the password manager) and adds at least 5 seconds to the
| login process.
|
| I ask... why?
| bb101 wrote:
| I've noticed this for years, and always wondered "Why?" myself.
| Then I came across a UX blog where the author suggested doing
| exactly this. Their reasoning being that new users aren't
| familiar with your website, so they need a big garish button to
| help them sign up easily, whereas regular users are familiar
| with your website already so they will know where the Login
| link resides.
|
| I don't agree with it personally, I think it reflects an
| organization where marketing is prioritised over customer
| happiness.
| saddestcatever wrote:
| > Why do companies like Twilio make me put my email in first
| and hit the arrow before i can even type in my password?
|
| Because of lazy UX implementations of SSO.
|
| You'll see logins like Google, where this is common. If you
| submit an email that has an SSO authentication associated with
| it, they can redirect you to the right auth form.
|
| However, for everyone that's not an SSO login this is a worse
| experience.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| I swear, designers and developers are un-learning how to build
| sites. Things that used to Just Work on the web (sign in,
| scrolling, load speed, etc.) now merit an article.
| epistasis wrote:
| Every new generation has to either learn from the past or
| reinvent from scratch. The web has always had lots of cargo-
| cult copying of processes, because the most influential sites
| always get copied in order to try to be more familiar.
|
| And with the overwhelming complexity of current front end web
| tech, it seems there's not much time left to put into
| thoughtful user experience.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It's less about un-learning and more about the entire market
| changing, compromised by seemingly-endless VC money that
| rewards growth and "engagement" more than actual profits
| derived from value delivered to users.
|
| Nowadays a large chunk of online services' objective is more to
| "engage" you and sign you up to some bullshit newsletter or
| sales call rather than actually provide you a service that
| you'd be happy to pay for. Marketing has become the primary
| objective, with "deliver value to the user" a neglected side-
| effect.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| See, I believe this is not a good enough argument.
|
| This would be the same as excusing falling bridges and
| crashing planes on whoever's money speaking louder.
|
| If the people who actually _build_ anything - the actual
| developers, engineers, etc. - don't build things up to
| standard or can't manage executive expectations, there's no
| hope; we'll live in a capitalocracy ruled by MBAs.
|
| People building things need to care about the crap they ship
| because they'll have to use it too. There's way too many
| people in the industry not caring, just happy to collect a
| paycheck.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I just started to notice... some websites change places of sign
| up, and sign in buttons.
|
| Who in the world came up with this?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| A couple of frequent mistakes with signin which are usually
| caused by junior product owners/ux persons not reflecting on what
| they are doing and blindly copying what they believe is the way
| to do things.
|
| - Having confusing language and poor differentiation between the
| sign in and sign up form. Symptom, users start filling in the
| wrong form only to realize their mistake.
|
| - Separating the password from the email field with an extra
| mouse click sucks if you are using a password manager. Doubly so
| on mobile where using password managers involve a bit of fiddly
| interactions. Having to do this twice sucks. If you do this, at
| least have one of the fields in the dom tree but hidden so that
| it gets filled with one click via your password manager.
|
| - Not making the login form password manager friendly my not
| sticking to conventions for field names for this.
| 725686 wrote:
| As a non-native English speaker I always confused "sign in" and
| "sing up". I would prefer totally different words like "Enter"
| and "Register".
| kijin wrote:
| Yeah, those two phrases look too similar. What happened to
| good old "login" anyway?
| notatoad wrote:
| from the meeting where it was explained to me that we
| couldn't use "login", it is too technical-sounding and not
| friendly enough. "log in" is computer language, "sign in"
| is human language.
| yoz-y wrote:
| What is the origin of sign in? I imagine the old days
| when you needed to sign a book when entering premises? Is
| this the floppy disk for save action of web jargon?
| bluedino wrote:
| You want to enter a site you're already on?
| 725686 wrote:
| As I said, English is not my native tongue. Choose whatever
| synonyms are appropriate. Even google translate gets
| confused. If I enter "sing in" it translates it to Spanish
| as "registrarse" which is actually "sign up"! How about
| using enroll, or register instead of "sign up"?
| yoz-y wrote:
| I feel that lately password managers (at leat 1Password, which
| is what I use) have been working even with split forms. So at
| least there is that.
| tomxor wrote:
| Another one:
|
| - Defocusing input fields in the middle of typing login
| information
|
| I guess i'm in the minority these days but I like to keep
| strong passwords in my head.
|
| This usually happens due to some side effect of the login page
| being absolutely fucking massive and not fully loading or
| executing before I start to fill in the form, then one of three
| things usually happens in order of frequency:
| 1. cookie banner blocks input and defocuses 2. it
| defocuses for no apparent reason (I suspect MVC "rendering")
| 3. it "helpfully" re-focuses on the first input element
|
| The last one is the most annoying because in the worst case i
| type my password in visible text.
|
| Only login I regularly use that does not suffer from this
| problem (or any others!), is HN:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/login is 1.07KB
|
| Causes only one secondary HTTP request to favicon at 7.66KB
| which doesn't interfere with the page in any way.
| G4BB3R wrote:
| Since I started using facebook (2010) until today, it happens
| to unfocus and is very weird. If I go to login page, start
| typing my email very fast, it lose focus after 1s even before
| I finish typing.
| jan_Inkepa wrote:
| > - Defocusing input fields in the middle of typing login
| information
|
| Browser url-bars are shooketh...
| tomxor wrote:
| The great internet speed divide has no patience for loading
| superfluous crap that is wasting their lives.
| Timpy wrote:
| >defocuses for no apparent reason
|
| I use Surfing Keys, a vim-like plugin for browsers. When
| inputs defocus unexpectedly while I'm typing all of the
| navigation shortcuts kick in and it's like "roll a d100 to
| see which random negative consequence you get." Usually I at
| least lose the page that I'm on and I have to start the form
| over.
| majormajor wrote:
| At the last big subscription company I was at, it wasn't a
| product owner seniority thing, it was a organizational problem.
|
| Signup is a big thing with lots of stakeholders and interest.
| User acquisition is an easy metric to track for business
| health. Everyone wants to push not-logged-in users to sign up.
|
| Ownership of logging in was much less clear. It's not a full
| time job for a person or team in the same way customer
| acquisition is. So you put some buttons/links on the page, but
| then there's no single owner of them to get pissed off when
| other teams start moving their shit around.
|
| (The other aspect here is that the website was a declining
| platform compared to the apps, where a not-logged-in user is
| much more captive and there's a more obvious single "login or
| signup" landing page point. On the web most media sites, at
| least, try to provide SOME sort of preview/partially functional
| experience version of the logged-in view, which wasn't designed
| with a prominent "SIGN IN" button in mind.)
| kevincox wrote:
| This is what is screams to me. When I have a hard time
| finding the sign-in link it says "We don't care about our
| existing users, we only care about getting new ones." It is a
| big red flag for me these days.
| tyingq wrote:
| Also, blocking right-click->paste is REALLY irritating.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Separating the password from the email field with an extra
| mouse click
|
| I think they mostly do this so SSO customers do not
| accidentally enter their company password on the site every
| time.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Right, often those sites have customers with different SSO
| systems. I type my company mail address and am redirected to
| company SSO.
|
| I like this more than other sites where I have to find the
| right button between different login options (sign in with
| google, sign in with facebook, sign in with sso, ...) and
| then have to type the company name ... whatever might be the
| choice the admins did there that time ...
|
| I also think that approach was initially created by Yahoo! So
| they could shown the user's avatar on the password page to
| prove authority. Not sure whether that still is a thing
| somewhere, considering that a recent trend is not to verify
| whether an account exists ...
| jonplackett wrote:
| This is always still annoying since you type in your email,
| then get sent off to your SSO page - and they can never be
| bothered to post your email over, so now you have to enter it
| again.
| thrower123 wrote:
| I don't know if all of the SSO login sites do this, but
| Office 365 authentication makes it a huge pain in the ass
| to get back to the page that you tried to login from;
| usually you get dumped back to the home page, and have to
| try to navigate back to where ever it was you were.
|
| Azure Active Directory does not make it easy to do this,
| with the way you have to explicitly whitelist post-back
| URLs, or else you get the dreaded login.microsoft.com 401
| page of death, where you have to parse out information
| buried in the query-string to determine why you didn't get
| redirected properly (usually it is a trailing slash on the
| URL... %2F)
| alex_anglin wrote:
| Agreed. It always seemed to me as analogous to the
| situation whereby one enters some identifying information
| in a phone prompt, only to have to spell it out again for a
| CSR. Both are just plain bad design.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I kind of agree, but that seems more of a problem with the
| target system.
|
| Anyway my name is remembered on my company SSO form, and I
| never sign in as someone else.
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| > - Separating the password from the email field
|
| This is useful if you support authentication methods other than
| password
|
| > - Not making the login form password manager friendly my not
| sticking to conventions for field names for this
|
| Instead of relying on heuristics based on field names, it's
| also possible to annotate the field with the autocomplete
| attribute
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Attributes...
| kkirsche wrote:
| You can still separate them and have a hidden password field
| for a password manager to bypass the other page or pass it
| through to the next page.
| numbsafari wrote:
| 1Password manages to handle this just fine, even without
| the hidden password field trick. Perhaps we just need
| better password managers.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Even if password managers handle the two-page scenario
| you still have the delay of loading the second page. On
| high-latency connections this is a major problem.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| > Separating the password from the email field with an extra
| mouse click sucks if you are using a password manager.
|
| If I understand correctly, the reason behind this pattern is
| SSO.
|
| Most websites are gaining SSO capabilities. Before asking for
| your email/user, they don't really now if you're gonna login
| using password, or you should be redirected to an
| IdentityProvider.
|
| I'd be happy to know if there are better patterns here but I
| think password managers should get a bit smarter and work with
| this trend.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Most websites I've used where this is a thing, definitely
| don't do this. All the projects where I dealt with PMs /
| designers insisting on this they would not even had a clue
| about what SSO was or how it impacts their UX. There are
| plenty of websites out there with sane login flows.
|
| Passwords work off well publicized naming conventions. That's
| why they work on the vast majority of websites. The problem
| is junior developers not knowing that is a thing getting
| creative with naming things. No-one on such projects even
| thinks about testing this or pointing out to their PMs that
| this does not work. 9 out of 10 times you'd get the response
| to "please fix that". Because why would you not.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| They could just check if the username needs to be redirected,
| and if they do then ignore the password. It wouldn't be that
| hard.
|
| The only downside is the user submitting a password they dont
| need to, but if you're using js you could post the username
| first and only post the password if needed. That would be the
| same exact process, except from the users perspective it
| would be seamless. You could even have it check the username
| as they type, and lock the password field if its not needed.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I could see a lot of large companies that integrate with
| other B2B sites recoil in horror with a UI that encourages
| employees to enter their corporate email address _and_ a
| password. Many employees would use their corporate
| passwords.
| notatoad wrote:
| this is exactly the sort of thought process that leads to
| terrible login flows. yes, it's technically possible, and
| it works for you.
|
| but the login flow is one area of your product that needs
| to work for _everybody_. There 's plenty of features that
| can be tailored to a power-user workflow because they're
| the only people that will see it, but the sign-in flow is
| not one of those. any confusing UI in your sign-in flow is
| going to confuse your least-confident users. and asking
| people using Facebook Sign-in to enter a password when they
| haven't ever set a password for your site is _extremely_
| confusing. all just to save a couple keystrokes for the
| most-technically-competent users.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Well for facebook, and any other big ones they could just
| click "sign in with facebook" thats common enough.
|
| The problem is when you have a bunch of enterprise
| customers and you're not sure which custom login to use,
| and you dont want to list all your clients.
|
| Ideally, this is solved by the client company telling its
| employees to use an internal link that authenticates and
| redirects. Though I'm sure not all clients are capable of
| this, and still want to use SSO. In that case, I think my
| solution is much nicer than requiring a two step login.
| egeozcan wrote:
| Honestly asking, what's wrong with "Password (Leave empty if
| you're using {Name of SSO}): ____"?
|
| If you are going to tell that may confuse users, I think not
| having a password field is already confusing the other half,
| while also not being password-manager-friendly.
| criddell wrote:
| Seems like password managers should be able to handle the
| password being entered on the next page when there's no
| input on the current page.
| nerdponx wrote:
| KeepassXC (and its browser extension KeepassXC-Browser)
| does this. Not sure why anyone would even consider a
| different password manager.
|
| (Just don't forget to donate, if you have the means.)
| jasdine817 wrote:
| Because different people have different requirements.
| kevincox wrote:
| Firefox also handles every one of these perfectly. I
| assume there is a hidden password field already but
| whatever it is it doesn't cause me issues other than an
| extra click.
| fckthisguy wrote:
| I don't think making the user read instructions is the
| solution. Most (myself included) will begin typing before
| they finish reading.
|
| The current trend to only show the password box after the
| username is provided doesn't have to be bad for password
| managers. I use loads of sites that do this (so they can
| support SSO) and they just use hidden form fields so the
| password managers know what to do.
|
| I'd be curious to hear any suggestions you have for
| password managers to improve here though. I can't think of
| anything short of a .well-defined login route.
| beforeolives wrote:
| The Oreilly learning platform does this. Email and
| password field on the same page and a message under the
| email field
|
| > Using Single Sign-on (SSO)? Simply enter your company
| email address and click sign in.
|
| Seems simple enough to me as a user, not sure how most
| people interact with it though or how many companies A/B
| test these things.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| My company uses an SSO provider with Google Workspace.
| Most employees have no idea about any of that, they
| wouldn't know and probably would type their company
| password there.
| beforeolives wrote:
| The password field disappears if you enter an SSO-
| compatible email address.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Then you have to either leak a list of each customer to
| the client to verify there or send each key stroke and
| consider latency ...
| csours wrote:
| Fitbit does something related - the url for your tracking
| dashboard is just fitbit.com, but when you go to fitbit.com, it's
| just the frontpage of the website; until you log in, and then
| navigate to your dashboard again.
|
| This makes it very clear that 1: fitbit wants me to use the app,
| and 2: fitbit wants to sell me stuff more than they want to help
| me.
| mhdhn wrote:
| I personally definitely agree with "Don't make customers hunt for
| the Sign In button on your website", since I find that so
| annoying. I've come to expect this annoying behavior especially
| from Y Combinator companies, ever since I read Paul Graham
| opining that companies should actually emphasize the trial/test-
| drive button, and deemphasize the sign-in button. He said that's
| what Viaweb did, and they thought it made better business sense.
| I just now tried a bit finding the essay where he states this,
| but I gave up. Maybe someone here will offer it.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Is it this?
|
| https://mixergy.com/paul-graham-design/
|
| Kind of along those lines.
| musicale wrote:
| Github hid their sign-in button and added annoying animations.
|
| Why, github, why?!
| pupdogg wrote:
| This pisses the hell out of me becuase, due to my privacy
| settings, I end up on their homepage a lot. Evidence just for
| records: https://imgur.com/a/HfF9vUJ
| globular-toast wrote:
| I hate this so much. They've all copied each other to the extent
| that having a hidden sign in button is requirement for a "modern"
| site.
|
| Back in the day it was the other way around. Sign in was primary
| and sign up was secondary (often accompanied by something like
| "don't have an account? Sign up"). You just know some busybody UX
| person saw that and argued this was bad for new members. Well now
| you've just screwed it up in the opposite direction. Well done.
| darkwater wrote:
| And this can be easily solvable by swapping the Sign up for Sign
| In after the first time you logged in a browser cookiejar.
| Obviously the devil is in the details, but it shouldn't be that
| complex having a visible Sign Up for potential new users and a
| visible Sign In for existing users...
| imhoguy wrote:
| Please don't! The worst thing is to swap meaning of a button at
| exactly same placement. If you are forced to do it then at
| least change background color and add some icon etc.
|
| But nothing can beat MS Teams "Close" document preview button,
| which once clicked, uncovers chat "Call" button. Add some laggy
| nature of Teams and you call the entire channel/chat just by
| trying to close an opened document with too many clicks.
| darkwater wrote:
| But that would not change "immediately". Basically if you
| never logged in (in that browser) you see the "Sign up" more
| prominently and once you registered, you are already logged
| in (so you don't see anything at all) but if you do log out,
| then you would see the "Log In" clearly (and the "Sign up"
| will be somewhere also but not in the best spot).
| johntash wrote:
| This could make it even more annoying imo. Sometimes the sign
| up button is the first thing you see, and then other times its
| the sign in button. You'd end up clicking on one or the other
| out of habit and realizing it was the wrong thing afterwards.
|
| If I'm signing in, there's a good chance there is no cookie
| saying I have ever signed in.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| I think changing the button styles based on cookies is not a good
| thing either, it just adds a new kind of confusion. Just keep the
| style consistent, give the login and sign up buttons a clear
| distinct style and keep it that way.
| fnord77 wrote:
| sites that seem desperate to add new users do this.
| blunte wrote:
| Don't make customer hunt for anything on your website.
|
| Prioritize features (ideally based on studying user behavior),
| and make those features present and accessible. Hide the rest, if
| necessary, behind some menu system or toggle.
|
| The minimalism trend (perhaps a reaction to the early amazingly
| busy Amazon UI?) has gone too far. One great (bad) example of
| this is Parabol.co. We use it at my company, and it provides just
| the right set of features we need. But for providing a relatively
| small feature set, it seems to go out of its way to make it
| difficult to know how to use those features. I only mention them
| because they are a good example of this, but there are countless
| other services that have user hostile (or frustrating)
| interfaces.
| spookyuser wrote:
| https://headspace.com/ is such a good example of this, login
| button is in probably the worst possible place on the page. And
| to make it even worse your login sessions are invalidated almost
| every day so you _have_ to login every time you use the website.
| jFriedensreich wrote:
| also please call it "log in" and "sign up" not "sign in", don't
| make users work to use your products, buttons starting with the
| same word are slower to parse.
| tluyben2 wrote:
| I was wondering if I was going blind for a while, staring seconds
| at websites trying to find where to login. Now I do what 'the
| computer illiterate' have apparently done for years; never go to
| the sites themselves, just put 'DigitalOcean login' etc in the
| addressbar (duckduckgo(or google)) and there you are.
| notdang wrote:
| And if you don't have an adblocker installed, the first 5
| results will be adds which will get you to the home page, not
| the login page. At least in this case you make them pay for it.
| young_unixer wrote:
| Discord is bad at this.
|
| When you receive an invitation to a server, you're presented with
| a textbox that reads "What should everyone call you?" and you're
| unknowingly creating a new account. Then you're asked your birth
| date and then for your email. You type your email and it's
| already used, obviously.
|
| By this point you don't want to go through the whole process of
| deleting your browser history to log into your existing account,
| so you go along with the new account thing and use another email
| address.
|
| Before you know it, you have 5 different accounts and don't
| remember which ones you use for which servers.
|
| Yes, there is a "use existing account" link, but it's not
| prominent, the "What should everyone call you?" textbox with the
| big "Continue" button are the only psychologically viable option
| unless you've already gone through the whole process of
| involuntarily creating many accounts.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I think discord is great but I do agree with you. The whole
| "join a new server" UX is in this weird place where you might
| not use it that often (even if you are a heavy discord user),
| discord having an unusual concept of servers, combined with the
| flip-flop dance between browser and native app.
|
| The end result feels slightly off. Like I can't say what should
| be happening, but what is actually happening feels not quite
| right.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Does Discord let you create multiple accounts with the same
| email address?
| anilakar wrote:
| And when you access the site directly, you are always shown the
| front page which is basically a full-screen ad and serves no
| other purpose than user conversion. Furthermore, the sign-up
| link literally says "Open Discord in your browser" which can be
| read as "go to the app".
|
| Ideally there was one single email address field and a combined
| sign up / sign in button that either took you to the password
| or new account creation dialog. If you're concerned about
| privacy implications, do realize that user signup forms leak
| the very same information.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Unless I'm mistaken, Slack actually forces this as part of
| their model: one account per organisation. It's not fun when
| you have to reset passwords...
| Twisell wrote:
| I had to create a Slack account to interact with a vendor
| support team. Run into that mess and can't for the love of
| god find a "manage all your accounts" interface on Slack.
| It's insanely counter-intuitive.
|
| I'll avoid Slack as much as possible unless they fix this
| evil UX.
| peanut_worm wrote:
| I think I have 4 discord accounts for that reason
| yawnxyz wrote:
| it took me until right now to realize that this happened to me,
| and that I've been using the wrong account for the last six
| months and I actually have two accounts... so really, at this
| point my "wrong" account is my real one.
|
| The reason it happened is b/c I use email aliases for stuff I
| sign up for, and sometimes I forget them...
| metalman wrote:
| Frustration is one of or the primary drivers in the purchase and
| use of computers. "Getting them to do anything at all,makes us
| overlook there fundimental uselessness" Douglas Adams
| sen wrote:
| This is becoming more and more common with major sites, and it's
| really bloody annoying. Some are putting "Sign In" behind some
| tiny dropdown in the nav, not just grayed out or small but
| invisible unless you hunt for it.
|
| They know exactly why they're doing though, and I think OP is
| preaching to the converted. Those doing this don't need a
| tutorial explaining how not to do it, they need to lose money
| (users) until they stop doing these dark patterns.
| mkl wrote:
| I don't understand. Why is it to their advantage to have their
| users struggle to log in?
| bartread wrote:
| They probably have metrics suggesting that having both sign
| up and sign in buttons on the page leads to lower sign up
| rates than having only a sign up button, or something along
| those lines.
|
| Rather than find a more in depth/better designed solution,
| it's easier just to remove the "sign in" button and any
| "confusion" that might cause for users who would otherwise
| complete the sign up workflow. If their A/B testing indicates
| that removing the button improves sign up rates, that's
| exactly what they'll do.
|
| It's super-annoying and short-sighted - not to mention lazy -
| but this kind of micro/over-optimisation of behaviour on the
| web has been de rigeur for at least a decade now.
|
| A better approach would be to try to understand why
| "confusion" around sign up/sign in is happening - i.e.,
| what's the real reason having both buttons/links on a page
| decreases sign up rate? Root cause the issue and you can fix
| the real problem in a way that probably doesn't annoy your
| customers. That's effort though and most customers probably
| don't care enough to complain about the annoyance of hunting
| around for a sign in button or link.
| hnarn wrote:
| The first time I encountered this was Dropbox. It honestly made
| me re-think using them at all, and these days I mostly use
| OneDrive.
| croisillon wrote:
| My pet peve are paid services only showing the limited-promotion-
| price, a discount is nice of course but I want to know how much
| that will cost me in the long run.
| holler wrote:
| For https://sqwok.im, I explicitly placed the login/signup
| prominently at top right for all users on mobile and desktop
| because I want it to be clearly visible always. I could see some
| value in detecting whether the user has already created an
| account and highlighting the "login" portion like the author has.
|
| There's a business service site I have to log into once a month
| who've hidden the login behind a drop down and it's really
| annoying!
| mattmanser wrote:
| Your site is really slow. I honestly thought it was broken when
| I first went, no login link to be seen at all.
|
| This is why you should avoid making a SPA unless you know what
| you're doing, if you're going to use one at least put a spinner
| or something so it's clear the site's doing something.
| holler wrote:
| > This is why you should avoid making a SPA unless you know
| what you're doing
|
| The site doesn't have much traffic right now and is running
| entirely on serverless lambda, it's likely you arrived while
| it was idle and had to wait for it to wake up...
|
| > at least put a spinner or something so it's clear the
| site's doing something
|
| def should improve the loading state for when it hasn't woken
| up yet.
| jjgreen wrote:
| No login link, just a series of grey lines, even after I enable
| javascript. Ah, I see you require that I accept cookies just to
| to view your front-page ...
| holler wrote:
| Yeah this site requires javascript to use and it uses
| cookies... It may load slowly if there's no traffic, see
| below.
| pypie wrote:
| This drives me nuts. It feels the same as the insurance company's
| phone menu asking if you're interested in purchasing a policy or
| submitting a claim, where the former choice get you an instant
| human being and the latter a 45 minute wait. In other words, it
| signals that you're more interested in signing up new customers
| than serving your current customers.
| Forge36 wrote:
| I'm working on switching insurances this month. 18+ months of
| being unable to pay online.
|
| If they don't want my money and competitors are cheaper why am
| I debugging their website to get passed all of their JS errors?
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| Semi-related:
|
| The trend of the not having a log in button and only a sign up
| button, requiring multiple clicks just to login. I get that less
| friction for a new user is better being the thinking but I truly
| hate having to go through multiple pages just to sign in.
|
| What happened to having sign in/sign up being on the same page?
| Seems the simple and easy, as well as lowest friction way of
| splitting the difference between new and existing users.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I love this pattern - I think it was Slashdot I first saw it on
| - but it still suffers from the same problem. What do you label
| the button - "sign up / login"? It's still easy to miss that
| it's also for login when scanning.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I'm sure UX research shows that the login button is seldom used
| on a particular site, therefore not that important.
|
| Why seldom used? Because you stay logged in for a long time.
|
| Is UX bull on this issue? Maybe, but if you are logged in for a
| long time, and then you come to log in when you've been logged
| out, it might be that you accept the lousy experience on this
| issue because you actually want to use the site... all that
| said I wouldn't care if the UX research suggested it was a good
| move. I wouldn't do it (on anything I owned, I would just argue
| against it if asked to implement it)
| alpaca128 wrote:
| UX research also shows that one of the most important things
| is consistency. Internal consistency as well as consistency
| with other websites the user is familiar with.
|
| 99% of sites don't have so many features and sections that
| they'd need to omit some of them from the landing page. But
| for some reason they think replacing UI elements with screen-
| filling fancy animations and a lot of empty space inbetween
| is somehow a good thing. I never saw any upside in this.
|
| I have a short attention span and am easily distracted, and
| modern UI trends are catastrophic from my perspective. I
| don't care about a fancy "hero area", just give me a menu bar
| that stays in the same place and gets me anywhere I need.
| fireattack wrote:
| Seriously. I honestly don't mind to have "sign up" being more
| prominent, but see very little reason why they go further and
| hide login button..
| ziml77 wrote:
| More clicks to log in than sign up is annoying, but what really
| bothers me is when they don't make it clear that the page
| brings you to both. Like if the button only says "Sign up" I'm
| going to look around for a bit for a "Log in" button first. If
| they're going to combine them, the least they could do is make
| it say "Sign up/Log in"
| spicybright wrote:
| I miss going to foo.com and having user/pass fields on the top
| row of the screen, with maybe a sign up link next to it.
| macNchz wrote:
| A handful of websites I visit periodically have username and
| password fields readily available....but they are
| registration forms not login forms, and if you put in your
| existing credentials, it'll just tell you that you already
| have an account and should log in instead. You couldn't just,
| you know, log me in with the information I just provided
| instead of telling me to provide it again on a different
| page? Drives me up the wall!
| sethhochberg wrote:
| I'm familiar with a few sites which used to be this way with
| the login form directly on the homepage, and removed those
| fields during the internet's transition period from HTTP to
| HTTPS for all pages. Browsers started flagging pages which
| included password fields as insecure, even if the form
| containing them submitted via HTTPS (which was arguably a
| fair assessment). The solution for many sites at the time was
| simply to move all login to a distinct page which was served
| over HTTPS, and leave all other pages as HTTP. Back in that
| day the opinion of many site operators was that HTTPS was
| going to tank advertising revenue, so they avoided it
| whenever possible until the browser vendors forced their
| hands.
|
| In many cases the homepage login forms took years to come
| back, after we got to a point where virtually every site was
| all-HTTPS on all pages. In some cases they never did.
| jspash wrote:
| Ahhh. I miss the days of the username and password being on
| the _same_ page! I refuse to believe that the average
| internet user gets confused by a two field form that they
| need to break it into two (usually slow) steps. Re-
| architected in (usually flaky) javascript. That takes up
| (always more) of my time!
|
| (sorry for the !!!'s. but this one really gets my goat)
| jtvjan wrote:
| That's to support single sign-on. It checks whether to show
| the in-house sign-in page or to redirect.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This one is a significant failure of our entire industry.
| We've somehow accepted that degrading user experience
| because of an implementation detail is good instead of
| working together to hide that implementation detail by
| implementing the necessary browser functionality.
|
| We already have technologies such as Kerberos that are
| supported in every browser and seem like they would solve
| this problem.
|
| In any case, as a website operator you can mitigate this.
| Have separate pages for SSO/non-SSO, dynamically hide the
| password field if the username is associated with an SSO
| provider, or just ignore the password field and have a
| subtitle along the lines of "leave password empty for SSO
| accounts".
| AgentME wrote:
| It's not obvious to me that it's an improvement to have
| an extra textbox that goes away moments after you type in
| your email address (possibly after you've tabbed into it
| to start typing) or an extra textbox that just stays
| there unused.
| midasuni wrote:
| Can't you detect it client side? Send the contents of the
| username field to the backend, if it's SSO change the
| password field to "login with ssoprovider.com"
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| It's even worse user experience since things change as
| you type (you have to wait for network round trip so it's
| not instant), plus password managers are still confused.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| I thought it was to make scraping slightly more
| difficult.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| I save the login page link in my password manager. Problem
| solved.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Other people still had the problem, even after you did that.
| Problem not solved?
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| Digital Ocean has this problem.
| joshxyz wrote:
| Fuck yea i love them but this is ANNOYING lol
| alias_neo wrote:
| Yep, even worse on mobile. You have to open the hamburger menu
| and then scroll 4+ screen heights down (on a OnePlus 8 Pro)
| just to find "Login".
| memco wrote:
| GitHub is one that gets me often.
| dewey wrote:
| What's the problem? They have both "Sign in" and "Sign up"
| next to each other. Same color, opacity and the only
| difference being that there's a border around "Sign up".
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| On mobile, the sign in link is hidden behind a hamburger
| menu.
| memco wrote:
| Yes, that's what gets me.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I remember the same, but funnily enough, it seems to be fixed
| now, with both "Sign in" and "Sign up" buttons available on the
| top right. I don't remember how it was before, but I always
| started to create a new account instead of logging in.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| It's significantly worse if your browser is half the width of
| a 1080p screen, which mine generally is.
| tailsdog wrote:
| Irony is there is no "Sign In" button or link on this page. I
| have to hunt for it by clicking the Logo to get to get back to
| the homepage.
|
| I know it is a blog but still it's part of the website and as a
| customer I should be able to access "Sign In" with one click from
| any page, right?
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| I just decided to stop pursuing a home loan with a company
| because of a few anti patterns like this. The first was there was
| actually no "log in" button whatsoever. You have to click "create
| an account", and _then_ there's a log in link.
|
| The second, more fatal anti pattern is not allowing paste in the
| password field. There's simply no way I'm going to memorize
| random 30-digit password for your website. (I had to use dev
| tools to actually paste the password). Even though the APR was
| good we moved on.
| cek wrote:
| Kindel's 2nd Law - Companies with a subscriptions-based business
| model eventually behave in ways hostile to that company's
| customers.[1]
|
| [1] https://ceklog.kindel.com/2019/07/30/kindels-2nd-law/
| ethanoler wrote:
| I am a UIUX product designer, and this was left intentional.
|
| The idea is that benefit of having a better CTA for SIGNUP far
| outweighs the friction/cost for the obscure SIGNIN.
|
| Existing Users can also be trained and conditioned to look for
| the sign in. They will not get away since they are existing
| customer (SaaS).
|
| However, once a prospective new lead bounces out, most likely
| they will not convert anymore (counting remarkerting aside)
| stunt wrote:
| Another one:
|
| SaaS websites, don't make visitors hunt for what the hell the
| service does.
|
| It's somehow hard for many SaaS websites to clearly explain what
| their service does. I often have to dig into multiple pages to
| figure out what the service does.
| [deleted]
| fossuser wrote:
| This kind of thing really bothers me - it's like a symbol for how
| little they care about existing users.
|
| I feel like there should be some specific name for this kind of
| thing - design patterns that target new users and suck for
| existing users. Honeymoon feature?
|
| 'First hit is always free' feature? Maybe just 'First hit'? I'm
| bad at naming.
|
| ---
|
| "As they approached the city they could see enormous walls
| surrounding it. Jonathan noticed a guard standing near the
| entrance to the city. The guard was shouting, "Sign Up! Sign Up!
| Sign Up!" and then more quietly, "or Log In.""
|
| https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/07/14/the-serfs-of-facebook...
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| That seems to be the way modern business works. Entice new
| customers with great offers and then neglect existing customers
| while milking them for money. Cable is like that. Cell phone
| plans are like that. With my car insurance it was the same.
| They raised rates every year so after 15 years I switched
| companies and now I am paying half the premiums. Even companies
| are like that with employees. New people are getting big raises
| for joining and people already there are getting 1% raises per
| year.
|
| It seems loyalty is for suckers these days. It used to be that
| long time customers and employees got rewarded. Now they are
| being punished and exploited.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| For my game site, I didn't want people to have to deal with
| passwords. I first tried to use google/facebook signon, but I
| found the code to be annoying to maintain (google and fb would
| change their APIs on a whim and really obscure the location of
| their settings for reasons unknown) and even my friends would
| rather not use those services. At some point I decided instead to
| just automatically sign people in and give them auto-generated
| usernames.
|
| https://www.miscbeef.com/birdcrab
|
| (blatant self-promotion)
| cpcallen wrote:
| For a while it was the case that Mailchimp.com did not have a
| login button on their homepage at all. To log in I would have to
| use the link sent to me by the colleague who managed our account.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Why not just _put the login in the top bar_.
|
| I'm not sure why a site would recommend making an extra click
| _easier_ when it's not necessary at all. If someone has ever
| logged into your site, they should get a login page so they don't
| have to do some extra tap. This is triply true if your site is
| frustratingly slow to load.
|
| Also:
|
| Support password managers. Your damned custom login page BS might
| be cute in design but sucks for usability. If your site doesn't
| work reasonably well with a password manager I won't come back.
| US Bank lost my business this way recently.
|
| Related: Have sane password requirements and limits. If my
| password manager gives you a 32 character password, don't bitch
| because it doesn't contain a number or uppercase character. It's
| 32 characters long and unguessable, that should be enough.
| Also... if you fail because there is an underscore or ampersand,
| you've failed.
| epistasis wrote:
| I'm about ready to unsubscribe from the LA Times for this BS.
| They seemingly invalidate my login every day, then when I get
| linked to an article, a huge pop-up obscures the article while
| reading it, and despite paying them for this damn service I can
| never even find a way to login.
|
| And if you do this to people just because their cookie went
| stale, then is this really a customer that you want to remind
| that they don't use your service enough? A customer that is happy
| paying the bill every month but doesn't use a ton of resources?
|
| It reeks of really bad optimization of metrics: do everything
| possible to increase conversions, at any cost to the rest of the
| business. That sort of desperation is not good for retention.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| > They seemingly invalidate my login every day
|
| I don't get it either, this is why I stopped reading the LA
| Times (I should probably cancel my subscription). On the other
| hand, I can't remember the last time I logged into NYTimes, it
| just works (that's why I read it daily).
| majormajor wrote:
| The login link is consistently in the bottom left of the popup
| for me, though I also wish it lasted longer.
|
| Some of this I suspect may be related to browser privacy
| settings these days, as the "Remember me" checkbox to avoid
| hitting 2FA for my bank accounts basically no longer works for
| me either these days? Some 3rd party cookie collateral damage?
|
| Password manager makes it pretty painless anyway, though.
| bluedino wrote:
| I'm not sure who owns the LA Times but it seemed like for a
| year you had to randomly login to any of the Advanced Media
| owned newspaper websites. Seems like a simple issue to fix.
| Maybe it wasn't.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| >I'm about ready to unsubscribe from the LA Times for this BS.
|
| At this point, I just naturally assume that newspaper websites
| are unusable. They certainly give ad-blockers a workout. Once
| you get through all the cruft candy I especially like the
| paywalls with the several second delays.
| omarhaneef wrote:
| Are you linking from within Facebook or Twitter? I think they
| have their own mini browser so your logging in outside doesn't
| count inside.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| That's another one. Shipping an In-App browser should be
| punishable by 20 years of only browsing the internet via
| Pinterest.
| epistasis wrote:
| Twitter or other chat apps or web-based link aggregators, but
| not Facebook. When in an app on mobile, I usually launch the
| native web browser from the Twitter browser. I almost wonder
| if some of the link parameters log me out some times...
| hparadiz wrote:
| This is what happens when everything is metrics based. Your
| paying customers pay the price. This happened with Loggly when
| solar winds bought them. We no longer use Loggly.
| stadium wrote:
| And the sign out button too!
| blntechie wrote:
| This is so common nowadays that for many sites I have the direct
| login page bookmarked. It indirectly implies that once you sign-
| up, the company stops caring about you. At-least for me.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| It implies that because it's literally true. Not a complete
| loss of care, but it makes sense to hide the sign in button
| because users who are already signed up are already invested,
| and less likely to abandon the service. The front pages main
| job is to grow the company by attracting new users, and a sign
| in button for users who aren't going anywhere anyways gets in
| the way of that.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Churn is a thing though and is as important as conversions
| fckthisguy wrote:
| While that may be the case (I'd also argue that the front
| page should be a welcoming place for existing users), showing
| me that you value your existing users is a great marketing
| move.
|
| It's otherwise very hard to convey that you care about
| existing customers so this seems like a no-brainer.
| simonh wrote:
| Inconveniencing either current or prospective customers never
| 'makes sense'. It's not like you have a fixed amount of
| inconvenience you have to distribute.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| You have a fixed amount of screen real estate on the
| landing page. Distributing it to your most important users
| for that page (prospective users) does make sense to me.
| kemotep wrote:
| Is the solution presented in the blog to utilize a cookie
| to determine if someone is a prospective user versus
| already a user not an acceptable compromise?
|
| It seems rather straightforward to me, from their
| example, to de-emphasize the "Sign Up" button and
| prioritize the "Sign In" button for someone who already
| has an account.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| That seems like a good strategy to me. It raises the
| question though, is it worth the cost of maintaining a
| separate page?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I can't see how people that already pay me money could
| not be the most important users?
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Your existing and paying users are:
|
| 1. Less likely to abandon your service than prospective
| users
|
| 2. by far less likely to even see your landing page,
| since they're usually already logged in.
|
| In this specific context, your existing users are the
| less important ones.
| erhk wrote:
| It's punishment for deleting your cookie. Don't sign in we
| don't want that. Just stay signed in. Trust us.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Even the solution in the article seems to suggest using
| cookies.
|
| I don't understand the problem, if people want to try or
| sign-up for your service they'll locate the signup button.
| That's a one time problem. A hidden login button just annoys
| existing customers.
|
| My feeling is that this is down to testing without privacy in
| mind. Your site might be fine, but others aren't so a
| minority of users will clear cookies at the end of each
| browser session. That's not a senario most will test for or
| experience.
| tesseract wrote:
| There are some websites that are both super aggressive about
| timing out your session and also make you play hide and seek
| for the login button. Of the sites I use frequently UPS used
| to be about the worst offender but the most recent version of
| their site does have a usable login link.
| Anon1096 wrote:
| Vanguard is another one that drives me up the wall. Going
| to Vanguard.com doesn't have a sign in area to autofill
| with a password manager; you have to go to the personal
| investors page. And sessions are hard limited to 15 minutes
| so you have to jump through these hoops every time. I have
| the correct page bookmarked but even on that page the log
| in boxes don't appear until half way down.
| presto8 wrote:
| Totally agree, Vanguard's landing page is a disaster.
|
| I was able to directly link this page however, which I
| bookmarked:
|
| https://personal.vanguard.com/us/AuthLogin
| switch007 wrote:
| The same Vanguard that could have millions of dollars of
| investments in your account? What's the appropriate time
| out?
| fckthisguy wrote:
| I don't think the criticism is the logout time, it's the
| fact that you have to hunt for the button. The logout
| time only exasperates the problem.
| [deleted]
| leesalminen wrote:
| Should probably require a TOTP MFA code for all movements
| of money anyway regardless of session validity.
| tzs wrote:
| How about having a short timeout for making transactions
| and a longer timeout for viewing balances and
| transactions?
| blntechie wrote:
| Agree, I always use incognito/private mode and maybe that's
| the reason I see this more often than others.
| musicale wrote:
| > once you sign-up, the company stops caring about you
|
| precisely
| daniellarusso wrote:
| Remember when a CRM was concerned with following the lifecycle
| of the customer, not just getting to the initial sale?
|
| Perhaps these are similar symptoms.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Isn't this the direct result of startup incentive structures?
| Don't startups measure success more in "number of conversions"
| than "number of return visits"?
| Arhaan wrote:
| Semi related, ClickUp does have a signup button right in front of
| you but they always log me out between sessions. It's a great
| app, but it's irritating when you have to login each day,
| especially since it is meant to be used everyday.
| poisonborz wrote:
| I also noticed this trend, but I don't understand the reasons,
| the site also doesn't explain it. Wouldn't it be beneficial to
| capture (and potentially track) existing users earlier? What's
| good in annoying them? Why are dominant sign in/register buttons
| mutually exclusive? What became of the trend of the reverse -
| large sign-in with a later option to register?
| JoshuaDavid wrote:
| My cynical guess is that when companies A/B test this, they
| find that a clear sign-in button reduces the number of new sign
| ups (because if the sign-in button is hard to find, some
| existing users will create a new account). A/B testing is great
| but it's very easy to optimize for something that's easy to
| measure rather than what you fundamentally care about.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Also, if you're running an online shop please don't put the
| "order as guest" option on the "register" page without any hint.
| donatj wrote:
| Plex's responsive design hides it at the bottom of their
| hamburger menu in super low contrast gray-on-darker-gray text
| when your window is less than maybe 900px. It's literally like
| they're trying to hide it.
|
| I keep my windows in a grid and I end up just making my window
| wider because it's easier than using their god forsaken hamburger
| menu.
| smilespray wrote:
| This is one of several reasons why I would never consider
| paying for Plex Pass again. The other reasons include spending
| a LOT of resources on rolling out features I imagine few users
| are likely to be interested in, such as DVR.
| donatj wrote:
| I wouldn't go that far. I subscribe to Plex Pass happily
| mostly to support financially a service I adore and use
| daily. Features I don't use don't hurt me and they give you
| the option to disable things you don't use.
|
| The login button is just hard to find on the homepage.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| You know, that's an odd thing. Pre-hoi polloi internet, there was
| an awful lot of push for interface standards on
| PC/workstation/Mac software. After the gold rush occurs,
| practically everyone's webpage displays the kinks of the
| developers or some toolkit. From a user's standpoint, there's not
| much value-added here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-03 23:02 UTC)