[HN Gopher] User Inyerface - A worst-practice UI experiment
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       User Inyerface - A worst-practice UI experiment
        
       Author : andyjih_
       Score  : 369 points
       Date   : 2021-06-25 19:37 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (userinyerface.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (userinyerface.com)
        
       | hpen wrote:
       | I got the fuck out after i clicked "no"
        
       | drosan wrote:
       | I gave up on "password" field - can't figure out how to make it
       | "unsafe" for the life of me OTL
        
       | SavantIdiot wrote:
       | I remember when <blink></blink> was the most annoying tag in
       | HTML. Ooof.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | sgt wrote:
       | That country dropdown selector had me cracking up. And all the
       | flags are not only unordered, but in black and white!
        
       | CamperBob2 wrote:
       | That's some Douglas Adams[1] grade work, there. Bravo.
       | 
       | 1: https://archive.org/details/msdos_Bureaucracy_1987
        
       | narush wrote:
       | This was actually hilarious, and honestly better than half the
       | screens I've designed :-)
        
       | suyash wrote:
       | LOL what a nice joke on UI!
        
       | soperj wrote:
       | I laughed at various points. well done.
        
       | xophishox wrote:
       | I cant stop laughing trying to fill out forms.
        
       | wtetzner wrote:
       | How do I get past this?
       | 
       | > Your password is not unsafe
        
         | WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
         | need to be Password1234
        
         | grawprog wrote:
         | You may need to add a cyrillic character...
        
         | zild3d wrote:
         | that means its fine (not unsafe is safe)
        
         | float4 wrote:
         | I wasn't getting through because my domain was "domain". When I
         | changed it to "gmail" it was fine.
        
       | iab wrote:
       | I can't remember the last time I was this angry
        
       | dang wrote:
       | One past thread:
       | 
       |  _User Inyerface - A worst-practice UI experiment_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344565 - July 2019 (255
       | comments)
        
         | Jipazgqmnm wrote:
         | And here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20353724 on July
         | 4, 2019
         | 
         | and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20345826 on July
         | 3, 2019
         | 
         | and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20351023 on July
         | 4, 2019
        
           | dang wrote:
           | True! it's just that the convention is not to link to past
           | submissions that didn't get interesting threads. Otherwise
           | users get cranky when they click on the links and find
           | nothing interesting there.
        
       | qwertox wrote:
       | Oh my nerves... what a stresstest.
        
       | grawprog wrote:
       | Well...I did it...somehow...I did...
       | 
       | 00:06:57
       | 
       | That seems too fast...apparently i've experienced these things
       | far too much. It actually was filling me with rage. I came close
       | to saying fuck it...I really did...
       | 
       | Well done to the creators...you managed to, with 100% accuracy,
       | capture every single thing that's horrible about signing up to
       | websites.
       | 
       | That bow thing though...gotta admit, was worth it just for the
       | chuckle I got as I realized...
        
         | LeftHandPath wrote:
         | I got it in 5:58 and I'm proud.
        
         | pageandrew wrote:
         | I got it in 3:49!
        
         | danudey wrote:
         | I got 6 minutes and 7 seconds, half of which I think I spent
         | trying to figure out the capcha.
         | 
         | Also, if you got to the capcha and got it on the first try, go
         | back and fail it a few times. They have some really clever
         | ones.
        
         | romwell wrote:
         | I got nearly the same time, 06:58. Spent the most time on the
         | bow.
         | 
         | If you liked this, you will enjoy the Phone Number UI from
         | hell[1]. Surprisingly, I did see stuff like that in the wild -
         | and from Google, of all places![2]
         | 
         | [1]https://qz.com/679782/
         | 
         | [2]https://i.redd.it/gns5ci5hp2yz.png
        
         | fernandotakai wrote:
         | i did in 4:33 -- it was fun!
         | 
         | https://i.imgur.com/RiHmKZM.png
        
           | squiggleblaz wrote:
           | You and I have very different definitions of fun! I got
           | annoyed when it asked me for a profile picture and I just
           | closed it.
        
         | dr_orpheus wrote:
         | I nearly quit when it said "your age and birthdate don't
         | match". Glad I got through because the bow and check also gave
         | me a laugh.
        
           | romwell wrote:
           | I absolutely expected that. Having both birthdate and age was
           | the Chekhov's gun on that form.
           | 
           | The only thing better would be to have them on different form
           | pages.
        
       | ChrisArchitect wrote:
       | (2018)
       | 
       |  _2 years ago Discussion_ :
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344565
        
       | slowmovintarget wrote:
       | I laughed out loud at the expansion control in place of the
       | "close" X in the corner of the T&C modal.
        
         | sodafountan wrote:
         | "Send to Bottom" of the help box is hilarious
        
           | Pxtl wrote:
           | It took me way longer than I wanted to admit to figure out
           | how to get rid of that, and then it starts slowly....
           | crawling.... downwards....
        
       | enjoyyourlife wrote:
       | Reminds me of job applications
        
         | loa_in_ wrote:
         | Not enough repetitive questions. The birth date one was
         | appropriately frustrating though!
        
       | infogulch wrote:
       | Love all the little details. Some favorites:
       | 
       | * Clicking 'expand' button on any dialog (T&C) expanded the
       | dialog to cover the page but doesn't expand the contents to match
       | 
       | * Tiny flag icons to select country
       | 
       | * The age slider that went from 0-180 years and didn't update as
       | you slid it (fun on a trackpad)
       | 
       | * number input for house number that required clicking on the
       | arrows to change it one at a time
       | 
       | * utterly ambiguous human verification instructions
        
         | romwell wrote:
         | >number input for house number that required clicking on the
         | arrows to change it one at a time
         | 
         | You might enjoy the Phone Number UI from Hell[1], and Google's
         | implementation of it[2]
         | 
         | [1]https://qz.com/679782/
         | 
         | [2]https://i.redd.it/gns5ci5hp2yz.png
        
         | wongarsu wrote:
         | Flag icons in grayscale. My country's flag is three equally
         | large horizontal bars, just like 12 other nations (and a lot
         | more if you count variations like little insignia etc). [1]
         | 
         | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triband_(flag)
        
         | kvirani wrote:
         | My current real world frustration: a date picker for birthdate
         | which starts in current year and I believe the native selector
         | in Android/Chrome doesn't let you select a year. You hit left
         | arrow to go down month by month. Am I crazy and did I miss
         | this? Ive seen it a few times now!
        
           | httpsterio wrote:
           | Usually you can hit the year number and it'll let you skip
           | whole years. But yeah.
        
             | Pxtl wrote:
             | iirc the Android 4 date picker had a microscopic hit-area
             | on the date where, if clicked, would display a year-key-in
             | dialog. I don't know if newer ones have this.
             | 
             | I hate date pickers so much that I use the Google Assistant
             | in all its hellish, buggy glory to create appointments for
             | my calendar on my phone.
        
           | 411111111111111 wrote:
           | There usually is a way, but it's often non obvious. I.e. the
           | picker might have a header like July without any visual
           | offset, but clicking could still switch the view to the year
           | picker.
           | 
           | I usually just try various stuff and I can't remember a
           | single time where I didn't find an option _eventually_ , but
           | they're sometimes well hidden
        
           | TranquilMarmot wrote:
           | I wonder if there's a way to get the datepicker to open on a
           | specific date... find the median age of all users and open
           | the datepicker in that year haha
        
         | karrotwaltz wrote:
         | Also if you select the first choice for birth date you get
         | April 1st
        
       | kgantchev wrote:
       | Took 8 mins to complete...
        
       | fredley wrote:
       | This could be so much worse. Why does the form retain my
       | information when I get something wrong? It should reset, or go
       | back to the start.
        
       | fullwaza wrote:
       | New Windows 11 UI preview?
        
       | toxik wrote:
       | 5:59 on an iPhone, why did I do this I don't know
        
       | throwaway4pooxi wrote:
       | love the help chat bottom right only has a increase height
       | button.
        
       | ParanoidShroom wrote:
       | Lovely to see a small company I worked with seeing end up here!!
       | If someone is looking for an agency, super fun and great people
       | over there!!!!
        
       | simlan wrote:
       | That was hilarious i gave up at the slow scrolling cookie consent
       | template. Thanks for the laugh !!!
        
       | beprogrammed wrote:
       | Thanks for the ideas, I will be sure to implement them in my next
       | project.
        
       | moistly wrote:
       | Doesn't appear to work on my tablet... so goal 110% achieved!
       | 
       | Edit: oh, heck, it does work--I completely missed the obvious
       | misdirection!
        
       | easterncalculus wrote:
       | I was expecting the benny hill theme to eventually start playing,
       | this is hilarious.
        
       | luke2m wrote:
       | 00:03:53
       | 
       | Much easier on mobile than desktop
        
       | pelagicAustral wrote:
       | I rage-quitted on the third captcha
        
         | jumelles wrote:
         | I ended up getting through by selecting them all.
        
           | qwertox wrote:
           | The worst was the initial scroll offset. I was wondering why
           | the last row had no checkboxes below the images, and was
           | unable select those images. After three or four times
           | submitting that damn dialog I noticed that I can scroll up.
           | 
           | I also had to scroll down the terms and conditions dialog
           | _twice_ because I thought I could just click the text in
           | order to toggle the checkbox.
           | 
           | 8 minutes and something. Very painful.
        
       | vlunkr wrote:
       | My favorite thing is the painfully slow animation when you send
       | the chat box to the bottom.
        
       | Pxtl wrote:
       | 03:51
       | 
       | I laughed out loud when I got to the bottom of the last page and
       | didn't see checkboxes and realized the checkboxes were _above_
       | the pictures and not below and had to scroll to the top.
        
         | paulddraper wrote:
         | I noticed that after a few seconds, but I had to go though like
         | 8 screens and it took 3+ minutes....
         | 
         | Did I just keep getting the Captcha choices wrong?
        
       | beforeolives wrote:
       | I genuinely gave up after two unsuccessful clicks. It probably
       | says something about my personality or current state of mind.
        
       | m3kw9 wrote:
       | It's so bad I didn't want to go past the 2nd page.
        
         | m3kw9 wrote:
         | A complement actually
        
       | arthurcolle wrote:
       | God this is painful
        
       | easton_s wrote:
       | I hated it. Good Job!
        
       | canada_dry wrote:
       | For Canadians... I love this one:                  ENTER YOUR
       | POSTAL CODE:          A1A1A1 <- ERR!          A1A 1A1 <- ERR!
       | A1A-1A1 YOU MAY PASS.
       | 
       | Lazy %@$# front-end devs that can't reformat the input!
        
         | shric wrote:
         | I'd say it's the backend's job to accept any of those and
         | reformat accordingly. If you rely on the frontend the backend
         | would still have to validate it anyway.
        
           | IggleSniggle wrote:
           | Yup. If you're going to do validation on the frontend, it
           | should be for the _sole_ purpose of improving user
           | experience, not for making life worse!
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | My email address has a dash in the domain and it's remarkable
         | how many sites (and big ones, too!) reject it as an invalid
         | domain.
         | 
         | Discover.com, for example, rejected it when I did a card
         | application, but disabling JavaScript let it go through on the
         | server-side validation. Bloody weird.
        
           | xoa wrote:
           | Really the entire idea of client/server-side email
           | "validation" kind of seems like an ancient, cockroach-like
           | anti-pattern that is impossible to stamp out. Like, what is
           | the problem they're even solving? One validates email
           | addresses by sending an email with a token the user then acts
           | on. There are useful things to do with emails, like checking
           | against already registered ones (including any blacklists),
           | but I can't think of any that would result in any in-page
           | user feedback since that would generally be a dumb
           | information leak. Like if someone tries to register an
           | already registered email, send an email about it don't leak
           | that it's registered.
           | 
           | And as well as being useless most such scripts seem to date
           | back a long ways and have very lazy and fixed assumptions
           | about what constitutes a valid address. I mean, I've never
           | been a fan of the explosion of TLDs, but it's also a reality
           | and they're all valid. Even on the left side of the @ a
           | surprising number of scripts seem to fail on things that are
           | perfectly acceptable characters.
           | 
           | Strikes me as one of the many little minor GUI traps where
           | new designers get carried away with the power of scripts and
           | do without asking if they should, then further get too clever
           | by half.
        
             | handrous wrote:
             | Lots of these kinds of things--at least for companies that
             | aren't just copying others' patterns blindly--are the
             | result of multiple support calls/emails/tickets. The
             | tickets, in this case, would be users complaining about
             | your service being broken when in fact they messed up their
             | email address and don't realize it. There are also some
             | cases in which you want to use the address immediately to
             | reduce friction (as with sending receipts or shipping data
             | for an order by a "guest" user without an account) without
             | first sending a verify-address email.
             | 
             | My personal preference is to let the user know why you
             | think the email address looks wrong and give them some way
             | to override your judgement and submit anyway. It's more
             | work, but it gives you all the benefits of rejecting "bad"
             | addresses while minimizing the harm of false-positives from
             | your bad-address-spotting code (it's very slightly annoying
             | to people with odd-looking addresses, but not that big a
             | deal). This also lets you go beyond validating the form of
             | the email address, to alert on common typos that _might_ be
             | legitimate (and which can sneak in even if you make the
             | user type the address twice).  "gmial.com looks like it
             | might be a mistake; are you sure you got that right?" Or
             | "yaho.com". Or even just Levenshtein-distance check a bunch
             | of common email domains and alert any that are close, but
             | not exact. You annoy whoever has an actual address at those
             | domains, but save a bunch more people who screwed up.
        
             | Shacklz wrote:
             | > like an ancient, cockroach-like anti-pattern that is
             | impossible to stamp out.
             | 
             | I feel like you just described email (or rather, "the"
             | email spec, as if there was a single one) in general.
             | 
             | Yes it obviously still serves its purpose but what consists
             | a valid email-address (let alone email) is specified in
             | such a godawful way that every application that I've seen
             | in the wild trying to address this problem somehow fails at
             | it (sometimes in negligible, often in very gross ways).
             | 
             | If devs all over the world manage to screw it up over and
             | over again, maybe it's just time to call it quits and
             | acknowledge that the spec is broken?
        
               | xoa wrote:
               | > _I feel like you just described email (or rather, "the"
               | email spec, as if there was a single one) in general._
               | 
               | But the concept of email is extremely useful, valuable,
               | understandable, and it's standardized and out of the
               | centralized control so common for anything developed
               | these days. I'd be happy to see some sort of email 2.0,
               | cleaned up, with modern encryption by default and so on
               | that served as a replacement. But I don't know of anybody
               | even proposing such a thing. Instead the rage is to
               | create yet another fucking instant messenger or slack
               | thing or whatever.
               | 
               | Everyone knows the spec is ancient and has had a lot
               | grafted onto it. But it's not going anywhere without a
               | good replacement and even with that the transition would
               | take a very, very long time. So as is so very, very often
               | the case in computing we just have to deal with that.
        
             | Nadya wrote:
             | > Even on the left side of the @ a surprising number of
             | scripts seem to fail on things that are perfectly
             | acceptable characters.
             | 
             | I've had an input require a minimum of 3 characters on the
             | left side of the @ to register. My email was just
             | "me@example.com" using my own domain name. A perfectly
             | valid email address. I am also unable to sign up for Id.me
             | for the IRS because it rejects both of my personal email
             | addresses. I cannot register to create NPM packages for the
             | same reason. I also cannot sign up for Vercel either. I
             | cannot sign up to Vercel via Github and when I try to sign
             | up by email it says the account already exists. When I
             | attempt to do a password recovery for the email it says
             | "Sorry, we are unable to validate that email." So the
             | original error of "account already exists" is actually
             | wrong - the account doesn't exist and can't exist because
             | they aren't able to validate the email for it.
             | 
             | My personal emails aren't even "weird" ones like ones with
             | an emoji or punycode domain or non-Latin character sets.
             | 
             | I hate with a fiery, burning passion every site that
             | attempts to do any kind of email validation beyond simply
             | sending me an email and letting me click a link to verify
             | my email exists.
        
             | lmm wrote:
             | > what is the problem they're even solving?
             | 
             | The problem they're solving is that a lot of people just
             | enter their email wrong and then wonder why they didn't get
             | the signup email.
             | 
             | > Like if someone tries to register an already registered
             | email, send an email about it don't leak that it's
             | registered.
             | 
             | This is something that's cargo-culted far too often. Maybe
             | for some services it's worth keeping secret which emails
             | are signed up, but for most it isn't.
        
           | sneak wrote:
           | Lots of websites reject email addresses at entirely valid
           | domain names as invalid, too, such as any at some of the new
           | TLDs like .email.
        
             | ceejayoz wrote:
             | I'm a little more inclined to forgive that, but dashes in
             | the domain have been valid for decades.
        
             | whatatita wrote:
             | So many websites provide some TLD validation but don't keep
             | it up to date. Using .xyz is an exercise in frustration.
        
           | mcbishop wrote:
           | My email address is "_@" followed by a domain name with a
           | dash followed by the "shop" domain ending. It gets rejected a
           | lot, but I won't give it up. It's a good indicator of whether
           | I should spend more time at the website.
        
         | dan-robertson wrote:
         | The U.K. government does this a ton with random reference
         | numbers, even on their new (mostly good) sites and it drives me
         | up the wall. Oftentimes they will give you these numbers with
         | spaces but the form will not let you enter it with spaces (so
         | it will fail if you copy-paste), or even worse the form will
         | have a size limit so if you paste your 10 digit number with two
         | spaces, the last two digits will be chopped off so it will fail
         | again when you remove the spaces.
         | 
         | Another problem is phone numbers: if you want to use some
         | autofill functionality, your phone number will often include
         | the country code part but the field won't allow a + (maybe in
         | this case the autofill feature should drop the country code
         | (and add a 0) or replace the + with 00).
         | 
         | I'm not actually sure about the significance of the space in
         | U.K. postcodes. I feel like it shouldn't be significant as one
         | can imagine a regex for the two parts,
         | /([A-Z]+[0-9]+)\s*([0-9][A-Z]+)/, but I then there are
         | exceptions like EC1R.
        
       | Weryj wrote:
       | I absolutely hated that, guess that's a success.
        
       | java-man wrote:
       | I feel like I've been in this experiment for the last 20 years...
        
         | systemvoltage wrote:
         | I have a personal punishment policy for any obvious violation
         | of UX/UI - they will permanently and irrevokably lose me as a
         | customer. Even if they fix it, I won't budge. Leadership needs
         | to use their own products and if they allow this to go to
         | production, I wonder what they're doing behind the scenes.
         | Small battles that I pick, but by god it is so satisfying.
        
           | doomroot wrote:
           | So a small shop that can only pay 1 fresh bootcamp dev who is
           | trying their hardest doesn't get your business because they
           | can't keep up with several hundred Frontend google devs.
           | Seems a little silly and absolutist.
        
             | analog31 wrote:
             | It's a win-win. The small shop also can't afford to deal
             | with this customer. Not to disparage either, but a first
             | lesson for small businesses is that you can't chase every
             | customer.
        
             | ryandrake wrote:
             | Most horrible UX comes from too much software, not to
             | little. If it was a single dev, they'd probably not have
             | time to implement all the popups, dickbars, newsletter
             | reminders, full screen interruptions, and dark patterns.
             | Horrible UX takes large engineering effort.
        
             | systemvoltage wrote:
             | It is usually the opposite - large enterprises have
             | horrible UX than a mom & pop small shop. Furthermore, just
             | because you're small doesn't mean you cannot fix UX of the
             | user. I don't throw my money at them in charity or pity for
             | being small. There are some great small businesses, and
             | many not so great. Absolutist argument is perhaps in the
             | point you're making.
             | 
             | I run a small side business with $2k/month in revenue and I
             | damn well make sure that there are no annoyances to the
             | user. This is _standard_ expectation and has nothing to do
             | with how big or small you are. We should all strive for
             | excellence and not perpetuate mediocrity.
             | 
             | Regarding silliness - it would be silly to keep going to a
             | restaurant that has rude service. That's what you're saying
             | essentially.
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | Wow. That is painful.
       | 
       | I recognized a number of those issues from a number of sites I've
       | visited.
        
       | dr_orpheus wrote:
       | Every time you click the "help" button its just says "Please
       | wait, there are X people in line." and just keeps going up every
       | time.
        
       | mabedan wrote:
       | I know I'm supposed to hate it, but at first glance the color
       | scheme reminded me of NC and I ... I ... liked it
        
       | leff_f wrote:
       | cannot stop laughing!
        
         | leff_f wrote:
         | Expand in the place of the close button is the best part.
        
           | davidmurdoch wrote:
           | And the best part is that I clicked it twice thinking the
           | second time would do what I wanted.
        
       | mike_d wrote:
       | Oh, I wondered what our UI designers had been working on for the
       | past month...
        
       | jliptzin wrote:
       | Only thing missing is deleting everything you entered into the
       | entire form any time there is an error message
        
       | inoffensivename wrote:
       | 5:08 of my life that I'm not getting back.
       | 
       | Congratulations, that was infuriating :)
        
       | jtvjan wrote:
       | I love the double indirection on the cookie dialog. You're used
       | to the small, unhighlighted option being the one to click to
       | reject cookies, but here the question is asked the other way
       | around, making the big button the one you want to click instead.
        
       | dshanahan wrote:
       | 4:11
       | 
       | OMFG this is brilliant and somehow made me happy and angry at the
       | same time. Well done.
        
       | CodeWriter23 wrote:
       | I can appreciate Nihilism-derived Humor.
        
       | c0nsumer wrote:
       | I think I found a bug. When I put 4-Aug-1978 for birthdate, and
       | 41 for age, it said age and birthday don't match.
       | 
       | It validated successfully on 42.
       | 
       | Although maybe that's part of the game?
        
         | dr_orpheus wrote:
         | Not sure, I didn't want to do math so I just put in todays date
         | and an age of 0. Worked!
        
           | nneonneo wrote:
           | Side effect: you've now created a child account and will have
           | to wait 18 years for all of the website features to unlock!
           | And don't dare make a second account, or you will get banned
           | for sockpuppeting!
           | 
           | At least one popular mobile game has a policy that the
           | account's birthdate will not be changed under basically any
           | circumstance, and child accounts are severely restricted
           | compared to adult accounts. Parents wanting to take over
           | their kid's account (happens more often than you'd think) end
           | up seriously frustrated with the restrictions.
        
             | kbelder wrote:
             | Yeah, my daughter has been eighteen since she was five.
        
         | jammaloo wrote:
         | If you were born in August 1978, you would currently be 42
         | years old.
        
       | Causality1 wrote:
       | I appreciate this. I'm so sick of seeing links hit the top of HN
       | that are utterly broken in landscape orientation because some
       | stupid pop-up renders with the close button off-screen.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-25 23:00 UTC)