[HN Gopher] Should toggle button show its current state or the s...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Should toggle button show its current state or the state to which
       it'll change? (2010)
        
       Author : wscourge
       Score  : 349 points
       Date   : 2024-02-12 08:13 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ux.stackexchange.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ux.stackexchange.com)
        
       | BLKNSLVR wrote:
       | I agree with the conclusion, but would like to add that it should
       | be obvious what the current state is, and what the state will
       | change to when the toggle is changed; too often I have to change
       | it in order to work out that I didn't need to change it.
       | 
       | The point about play/pause is really interesting because it goes
       | against the conclusion. However, it's following physical
       | precedent that's well understood. It's also (usually) obvious
       | when music or a movie is playing, so the button icon wouldn't
       | even need to change for the user to understand what pressing it
       | will do. This stands it separately to the toggle question, I
       | think.
       | 
       | Back to toggles and UIs, changing the colour of the toggle from
       | light grey to slightly lighter grey is unhelpful in the extreme.
       | Give me labels. If labels don't fit your motif then get better
       | designers.
        
         | Fluorescence wrote:
         | > However, it's following physical precedent that's well
         | understood
         | 
         | The physical precedent would be to show the behaviour as the
         | button image (play) and then the depressed/undepressed visual
         | state would show if the behaviour was active or not. Software
         | designers didn't follow this and invented swapping between the
         | play/pause icons causing this new confusion. Not for any user
         | friendly reason, more because skeuomorphic 3d buttons went out
         | of fashion.
         | 
         | > It's also (usually) obvious
         | 
         | The only virtue of indicating the state at all is for when you
         | have a problem. Very common for audio at least (muted sound,
         | unplugged headphones, linux audio drivers have become borked
         | again... sigh).
         | 
         | I still get that twang of cognitive dissonance when I see
         | play/pause buttons and have to think about it and might just
         | double toggle it anyway when I've got an issue because I can't
         | be 100% sure what a pause button means.
        
         | chatmasta wrote:
         | > it should be obvious what the current state is
         | 
         | Yeah, I don't need to know which direction of my light switch
         | means "on" (and in fact I don't know), because I can see
         | whether the lights are on.
        
           | xamde wrote:
           | Unless there is an issue with either the light source or the
           | power source. Muted/unmuted is also a pair where unmuted
           | often does not equal "we can hear you"
        
         | crazygringo wrote:
         | > _Give me labels. If labels don 't fit your motif then get
         | better designers._
         | 
         | That's unhelpful and unreasonable, particularly on mobile.
         | 
         | There's no room on Spotify for labels behind every button, for
         | instance.
         | 
         | Not if you want room to show the cover art, which I do.
         | 
         | It's not a question about "better designers" -- space
         | constraints are real, and sometimes you really need things
         | available at a single tap. I don't want shuffle to be buried
         | behind a pop-up menu.
        
           | sitzkrieg wrote:
           | have you tried to use spotify with a screen reader lately?
        
             | crazygringo wrote:
             | Not being vision-impaired, no.
             | 
             | Can you elaborate what your point is, since not having done
             | so, I can't begin to guess?
        
           | IggleSniggle wrote:
           | I just opened Spotify on my iPhone mini, just to check, and I
           | really have to disagree. Spotify has TONS of wasted space.
           | Even when you _do_ want to pull up the  "extra" menus (which
           | is frequent for me, since it seems like that's the only place
           | to get to the album for a given song), they practically throw
           | the space away. The hamburger menu can only fit _two items_
           | on its list of 10, because they waste so much space. I 'm
           | sorry, but 10 options can easily all be visible
           | simultaneously while still showing the current context of
           | that menu (the song).
           | 
           | But that ethos abounds. They hid all the controls, and make
           | many of the controls that they do show ambiguous. Am I going
           | to be shuffle-play on the queue? Is my queue currently
           | autogenerating songs at its end or is it going to stop at the
           | end of queue? And long presses / hovers provide zero extra
           | information for what the unlabeled buttons mean / do.
           | 
           | I'm pretty satisfied with Spotify UI on the whole, mostly
           | because of how easy they make it to toss the currently
           | playing song around to different devices and they handle
           | shared control well, but I do wish it didn't require three
           | taps and a scroll (in a context where it's not even obvious
           | that scrolling is possible, because the list is so sparse
           | that it doesn't look like there are any more items at the
           | end) to get to an album, which is almost always the context
           | in which I want to listen to a search result.
        
             | crazygringo wrote:
             | > _Spotify has TONS of wasted space._
             | 
             | Not on my iPhone SE screen.
             | 
             | I wouldn't want the buttons or even menu items to be any
             | closer together. It's not about information density, it's
             | about tap areas.
             | 
             | And I'm tapping the screen on the go, on a bumpy bus, being
             | jostled in the subway.
        
       | Waterluvian wrote:
       | I can't find it but one of my favourite designs was a switch with
       | a "light" beside it that lit up when the state was "on."
       | 
       | The best thing was that it also solved the latency of an async
       | operation. You'd click the switch which toggled, and then some
       | moment later the light came on. It felt incredibly satisfying and
       | gave confidence that yes, this interaction has done something.
        
         | vsnf wrote:
         | Without seeing the design in question, I think this still
         | demonstrates the ambiguity the post is discussing. Is the icon
         | what will happen, or what is currently happening? Is it the
         | state, or is it the action? Maybe this particular design was
         | unambiguous, but the description of it isn't.
        
           | robinsonb5 wrote:
           | If the light is beside the switch (rather than being the
           | switch) then I'd say it clearly and unambiguously indicates
           | the current state of whatever the switch operates?
           | 
           | (A light also has the advantage of being a skeuomorph - much
           | as those are now out of fashion - we all know how to
           | interpret indicator lights in the real world.)
        
             | Waterluvian wrote:
             | > A light also has the advantage of being a skeuomorph
             | 
             | Unless you're my TV and it's completely backwards for some
             | reason.
        
               | Sindisil wrote:
               | The standby light on a TV in on for standby and off when
               | viewing because a) it could be distracting and annoying
               | for the extra LED to be shining while viewing in a
               | darkened room, and b) the "on" state should be pretty
               | obvious because of the stuff on the screen.
        
               | continuational wrote:
               | And also, putting the TV in standby mode is an offense
               | punishable by a denial of darkness attack.
        
           | piva00 wrote:
           | In electronic music instruments (which derived interfaces
           | from electronics lab equipment) it's quite intuitive there's
           | a switch with a light on next to it the next state is off and
           | the light switches off.
        
         | mapreduce wrote:
         | > I can't find it but one of my favourite designs was a switch
         | with a "light" beside it that lit up when the state was "on."
         | 
         | So when I revisit that page after a long time and see that the
         | light is lit, does it mean that the state is currently ON or
         | does it mean that the state will change to ON when I click it?
         | How can I tell this by instantly looking at the lit light?
        
           | zmgsabst wrote:
           | On is active.
           | 
           | Just like most devices with signal lights -- which have been
           | that way for decades. Historically, the lights are signaling
           | power being supplied.
        
             | tsimionescu wrote:
             | It's also quite common to have a light indicator that goes
             | away when the device is turned on. TVs often do this - they
             | have an indicator LED to show that they are plugged in, but
             | turn that LED off when the screen is turned on, because it
             | can be distracted, and is anyway no longer needed.
        
           | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
           | We should go back to checkboxes. The problem here is having
           | the text change and be too clever.
           | 
           | [x] Mute
           | 
           | [ ] Mute
           | 
           | "Oh the X means it's muted"
           | 
           | Windows 95 and probably an older Mac had it all figured out.
        
             | pbhjpbhj wrote:
             | "Mute [x]" means that 'mute is false', so I click to make
             | it say "Mute []" but instead you take the "x" away, ... so
             | is mute no longer false?? If sound isn't working then this
             | can be difficult to determine. You can fix it with a
             | tooltip and/or familiarity with the system.
             | 
             | Buttons have more affordance too.
        
             | wolverine876 wrote:
             | Use an adjective?                 [ ] Muted       [x] Muted
        
               | jodrellblank wrote:
               | ... just the one adjective?
        
             | esafak wrote:
             | I would not use that word because it is a negative, so it
             | makes the user think. "Mic on" and "Mic off" are better.
        
           | Izkata wrote:
           | This interface has both a toggle switch and a light indicator
           | next to it. Both state and action (ish).
           | 
           | The light is independent of the toggle and shows the current
           | state, which is why they mentioned a delay - clicking the
           | toggle doesn't immediately change the light indicator next to
           | it, clicking the toggle tells the system to turn it on and
           | the toggle changes immediately to show desired state, and
           | only after the system changes and sends back "I'm on now"
           | does the light indicator change.
        
         | unnah wrote:
         | That would be a great use for an HDR screen - make the
         | "indicator light" extra bright compared to the rest of the
         | screen, to make it really obvious that the light is now "on".
         | Of course this would only work as long as the user doesn't keep
         | their screen too bright to begin with...
        
         | maicro wrote:
         | That sounds like an interface feature found on "smart" devices
         | - I'm only familiar with TP-Link Kasa switches, but I think I
         | remember their app UI having a similar feature where a color
         | icon had multiple states, the most "on" of which is "confirmed
         | with the switch it turned on".
        
       | laserbeam wrote:
       | The link should include a year in parantheses, as it's a 13 year
       | old question.
        
         | mapreduce wrote:
         | It has answers as recent as 2022 though and it could get more
         | answers now that it is on HN. What's the accepted practice for
         | putting year in parentheses for links like this that contain
         | user-written content that could be much more recent than when
         | the link was created?
        
           | mhb wrote:
           | > What's the accepted practice
           | 
           | How about (2002-?)
        
       | derekp7 wrote:
       | This has been really frustrating to me lately with Microsoft
       | Teams. If I'm in their app, the mute button is a microphone with
       | a line through it (if mute is activated, i.e. if the mic is off).
       | And the icon changes to a microphone without the slash over it to
       | indicate that you are no longer muted. Makes sense.
       | 
       | But if I join using the phone app on my phone, the same
       | microphone with a line through it (that means you are muted on
       | Teams) indicates that you are currently NOT muted, but you can
       | use that button to activate mute. After pressing it, the icon is
       | still a mic with the line, but it changes to a filled in
       | background (reverse video).
       | 
       | Is this because in one case, that button is a "mic on" button,
       | but in the other it is a "mute on" button, using the same icon?
       | And the button still does an OK job of indicating what state you
       | are currently in, as long as you know what the button looks like
       | in the opposite state (I always have to toggle the mute button a
       | couple times to observe what paradigm the given app is using).
       | 
       | I wonder if this is the price we pay for "flat UI", where
       | designers are still figuring out design elements without a real-
       | world reference to look back on.
        
         | Kuraj wrote:
         | Man... That's one button where you really DON'T want to be
         | confused
        
           | m463 wrote:
           | I have a hardware button on my headset mic.
           | 
           | Wish there were a hardware button for "accept cookie" or "yes
           | send me email offers" dialogs to conquer the not clearness.
        
         | the_other wrote:
         | There's a pretty interesting (to me) aspect of the mic
         | indicator/controller problem: without direct visual feedback,
         | you can't tell what mode your mic is in until _other people_
         | respond, or don't. It's a very laggy tool in terms of feedback
         | even when it's "on". In fact, you often need to test it two or
         | three times to be sure, because your fellow meeting members
         | might have frozen, might just be thinking before they respond,
         | etc
         | 
         | It's quite different from, say, dark mode, which is pretty
         | obvious when toggled on/off.
         | 
         | So the feature benefits a lot from a visual indicator of
         | current state regardless what you choose to do for the button.
         | It's unsurprising people try to smudge the "state" and
         | "control" together, for the mic more than many other controls.
        
           | ambigious7777 wrote:
           | I think the solution to this problem would be to have a
           | indicator on your profile that say is green when you can
           | talk, but red or gone when you can't.
        
             | semi-extrinsic wrote:
             | On the flip side, a red light has been the symbol for
             | "recording" for several decades. If you do an image search
             | for "record button", it is invariably red.
        
         | pavel_lishin wrote:
         | Discord is worse. Their buttons for mute-microphone and turn-
         | off-camera are inverses of each other.
        
           | causal wrote:
           | Yes! So confusing.
        
           | FridgeSeal wrote:
           | I hadn't noticed- or struggled with this, but I guess it
           | makes sense.
           | 
           | The channels are primarily audio and stream focused, with
           | users video being second in priority (makes sense when you
           | consider its initial target audience).
           | 
           | So by default mic is active, video is not.
           | 
           | When you mute yourself, you get a "muted" indicator next to
           | your name anyway.
        
         | gedy wrote:
         | This is a case where I think the indicator (LED in real world)
         | should be separate from the button, which label does not have
         | to change.
        
           | cobbal wrote:
           | Should the LED indicate mute on or mic on? I could see it
           | both ways, and so I would also have a hard time trusting this
           | UI at first.
        
             | SoftTalker wrote:
             | Should be a text label in present tense not (or not only)
             | an "LED". I like radio buttons but something equally
             | unambiguous could also work.                 Microphone
             | Status         [ ] Muted         [x] Unmuted
        
               | gedy wrote:
               | Amen on radio buttons. It's been really challenging to
               | get UX people in my companies to use these for some
               | reason.
        
               | terribleperson wrote:
               | This takes up a lot more space, but I like how absolutely
               | unambiguous it is.
        
             | kqr wrote:
             | It should have a label saying "recording" or something to
             | that effect. I don't know microphone terminology, maybe
             | it's "picking up".
             | 
             | With a label, a light indicator is unambiguous.
        
         | spookie wrote:
         | Wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion! Thankfully we're
         | seeing a shift to more nuanced skeuomorphism called
         | neuomorphism.
        
         | AceyMan wrote:
         | When I was just starting in IT (~1999) it was already a joke
         | that you could identify where different MSFT teams wrote
         | elements of software (say, Outlook) when a common action was
         | implemented two different ways (explained by Conway's Law as I
         | know now).
        
           | kqr wrote:
           | This is an older joke than that. My parents used to say the
           | same about switches in cars going the opposite direction for
           | activating stuff.
        
         | kortex wrote:
         | I think part of this confusion stems from the "default mic on"
         | mindset, where "mic active" is assumed to be the default, and
         | mute is a deviation from that state. We can trace this pattern
         | back to the UI of phone conference systems, back through analog
         | phones, back to the time of a literal wire connection between
         | parties.
         | 
         | Many/most audio mixers (in the context of live music and
         | recording) and their digital brethren use the same pattern - a
         | "Mute" button which lights red to indicate that channel is
         | silenced. But a few have an ON button above the fader which
         | lights to indicate the channel is active.
         | 
         | I think it's about time conference applications rip off the
         | bandage and take the "audio off by default" approach. We can
         | kinda see it already with UI elements that light up when a
         | speaker is talking.
        
           | FridgeSeal wrote:
           | I think Discord gets the UX right:
           | 
           | Default state is mic active. There's no slash through the
           | mic, when you speak (and it's above the noise cancellation
           | threshold) you'll get a green indicator on your name in the
           | participant list. Press mute, you get a slash through the mic
           | _and_ you get the same indicator, in red, next to your name
           | in the participant list. So in many ways they do both.
        
           | citrin_ru wrote:
           | With a good UI one should not know what is the default - the
           | current state should be clearly indicated. Different
           | backgrounds / colour shades is not a clear indication even if
           | it looks nice this way.
        
         | empath-nirvana wrote:
         | Slack is similarly confusing. I've really never seen a
         | conferencing app that does this well.
        
           | beezlewax wrote:
           | Zoom has mute or unmute coupled with icons the least silly
           | choice I've seen regarding this.
        
             | FridgeSeal wrote:
             | Unfortunately, every other UX and technical choice zoom
             | makes is so pants on head dumb, that is disqualifies them
             | from being taken seriously.
        
         | mvdtnz wrote:
         | I have a similar frustration with UI differences between apps
         | with Plex. If I look at a TV show season on my phone, episodes
         | I've watched have a blue check mark. When I look at the same
         | season on my TV, there's no blue check but episodes I haven't
         | watched have a yellow triangle. It always makes my brain double
         | take when moving between them.
        
         | zamadatix wrote:
         | This isn't the case for me, I wonder what's different between
         | us as I just tested:
         | 
         | Desktop: slashed = currently muted, plain = currently listening
         | 
         | Phone: slashed = currently muted, plain = currently listening.
         | 
         | I'm using the latest version of Teams for Windows and iPhone
         | respectively.
        
         | csydas wrote:
         | I don't mean to just blanket shit on Teams, but Teams is just a
         | confusing mess of UI choices and UX design that makes no sense
         | even within the context of using Teams. The meeting icons are
         | of course pretty awful as you cited, but it's even more things
         | for me [0]:
         | 
         | - When joining a Teams call, the toggle for video gets
         | "selected" so that pressing Return or spacebar (I think one or
         | both) will toggle the video on -- noticing that you did this or
         | that the video toggle is selected is a matter of chance as it's
         | hard to see
         | 
         | - For some bizarre reason Teams has a "start call" shortcut
         | that just immediately starts a call without the usual pre-call
         | warning items. Joining a meeting from your calendar gives you a
         | "pre-meeting room" where you can confirm your mic/video
         | settings before joining, but hitting the call shortcut or
         | button immediately starts a call
         | 
         | - Sometimes right-click menu loads slowly and additional
         | options load after you right-click and move the mouse -- it so
         | happens this will usually put the cursor on Pinning the message
         | instead of selecting reply or edit
         | 
         | - Regarding Reply/Edit, there is a nice button to jump right to
         | both, but for chats one button is showed, for private messages
         | another is shown
         | 
         | - All teams messages are linkable; whether or not you right-
         | clicked on a link in the message and are copying the link or if
         | you're getting a link to the message itself depends on if you
         | happen to notice whether you have 2 options on right-click or
         | 3+ options
         | 
         | - Copying a linked item (e.g., document, media, picture) will
         | have Download or Copy Link button. Copy link for some reason
         | puts up a text box across the conversation you're having that
         | is dismissible with escape or clicking usual x in box corner --
         | other "copy link" options just copy the link normally, other
         | ones (like copying channel link) will open a window with the
         | link for you to copy
         | 
         | - it is huge pain for me personally that the links you copy
         | from Teams are Sharepoint links and pasting it in a browser
         | tries to open files in Sharepoint browser, even if Sharepoint
         | absolutely cannot display a preview of the file: you sit while
         | Sharepoint tries to load a preview, and only after a few
         | seconds of Sharepoint trying does it show you a download button
         | to get the file (thankfully there are browser extensions like
         | Redirector [1] which can be used to create redirects for auto-
         | downloads...just Microsoft likes to change the URL for actual
         | downloads relatively often so occasionally you need to update
         | your redirects..)
         | 
         | Teams is so inconsistent and the UI and UX are equally
         | inconsistent -- Teams is also not shy about showing tutorial
         | prompts for features just whenever it wants to, no matter how
         | long you've been using Teams, sometimes it will just block the
         | entire app to highlight some feature it wants to advertise. I
         | honestly don't think this or anything has to do with flat UI
         | versus other ones, it's just plain lack of attention. maybe
         | flat ui's give the impression of a "completed" thing, but I
         | just can't see that most of the UI/UX issues for apps like
         | Teams are about the aesthetic so much as just a complete lack
         | of concern over what actually using the app is like.
         | 
         | 0 - All points here were observed on vanilla teams
         | installations on different computers -- maybe my work just has
         | weird defaults, but I'm not confident that is the case
         | 
         | 1 - https://github.com/einaregilsson/Redirector
        
           | beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
           | One thing absolutely bizarre with Teams is that if you copy
           | and paste the contents of a message most of the time it will
           | paste the contents as plain text with a weird timestamped
           | wrapper including the senders name. That makes passing a
           | filepath or any text super annoying through Teams, most of
           | all because it's a seemingly random behaviour --- sometimes
           | it does it and sometimes it doesn't.
        
             | csydas wrote:
             | Ah I know of this one and yes it's very annoying. But I can
             | explain the behavior for you, though it won't be any less
             | random-seeming in my experience.
             | 
             | Depending on where you stop your selection with the cursor,
             | Teams will think you either only have text selected, or
             | you've selected the message itself. The latter is what adds
             | the message data to your clipboard, and the border between
             | text and message selection is impossible to tell. On MacOS
             | I can _barely_ see some text highlighting when I grab the
             | message, but it's not always clear.
             | 
             | Edit: additional complaint
             | 
             | Teams is bad with text in general. It inserts so many
             | random new lines and hidden characters for cosmetic
             | purposes only, and unless you've dealt with the issue
             | before, you have no way of knowing why the powershell one-
             | liner you copied from teams has a bunch of ????????? at
             | random places like code blocks.
        
               | semi-extrinsic wrote:
               | It also parses certain C++ and Fortran syntax as
               | smileys...
        
               | tomsmeding wrote:
               | It had ( _had_!) a multi-line code block option. Now it
               | still does, but only in the desktop app, not in the
               | browser.
               | 
               | I'm sure they need some native platform APIs to enable
               | entering multi-line code blocks.
        
           | xahrepap wrote:
           | I agree. Teams is an app of a constant stream of little
           | frustrations to me. It's led me to believe that no one who
           | develop/designs uses this tool at all internally.
           | 
           | Not just confusing UI, but buggy UI. It's not abnormal for
           | people on my team to have "unread" indicators of messages
           | they can't get rid of. When you focus the app it does a
           | silent refresh and if you start typing too soon the refresh
           | finishing will delete what you typed.
           | 
           | Tons of stuff like this. It's infuriating.
        
         | clolege wrote:
         | IMO "muting" as a user-facing concept should be done away with.
         | 
         | It's inherently negative, basically meaning "not enabled" and
         | as such, `not muted` == `not not enabled`.
         | 
         | Just say whether their mic is on or off, and reflect that with
         | the UX elements and writing. Done.
        
       | 6510 wrote:
       | I do keep doing it myself but combining multiple things into one
       | button is a bad idea. What if the toggle action is just slightly
       | delayed? What if the system is frozen, do you press toggle again?
       | when do you know your click didn't register? Was freezing not
       | annoying enough by it self?
        
         | InCityDreams wrote:
         | Are you a British Postmaster?
        
       | knallfrosch wrote:
       | The solution that reliably works are lots of switches on the same
       | screen. The user extrapolates from a single known state.
       | 
       | Mobile users might be confused about whether Auto-Rotate is on,
       | but they do know whether Airplane mode is on.
        
         | maicro wrote:
         | Mobile users shouldn't be confused about whether Auto-Rotate is
         | on, because Auto-Rotate should always be off. /rant
        
       | mhb wrote:
       | Using words often works. But let me chime in with some outrage
       | about the icons on an Android tablet - a triangle, circle and
       | square with no discoverability and no ability to add text to
       | icons on the home screen? WTF?
        
         | freitzkriesler2 wrote:
         | Can you clarify what you mean for discoverability?
         | 
         | As for the 2nd one, I would download a different launcher. I
         | know Nova lets you do that.
        
           | mhb wrote:
           | I mean that it's impossible to discover what will happen when
           | I push on them before I do it.
           | 
           | I'll take a look at Nova. Thanks.
        
             | freitzkriesler2 wrote:
             | Ah yeah I know what you mean. For what it is worth, they've
             | been pushing a new gestures system that supercedes the old
             | tool belt buttons. Not sure your tablet has that.
             | 
             | And you probably know now, but just in case Triangle: back
             | Circle: close Square: task manager
        
         | lupire wrote:
         | It takes 1 day to learn, to avoid years of extra clutter on the
         | screen. But an option or a long press tooltip would be nice for
         | special cases.
        
           | CamperBob2 wrote:
           | Legibility isn't clutter. We moved away from hieroglyphics a
           | _long_ time ago because alphanumeric characters are
           | objectively better.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | Hieroglyphics _are_ alphanumeric characters. We moved away
             | from them because they are much too detailed to be
             | convenient to write.
             | 
             | You could make a case that alphabetic characters are
             | "objectively better" than syllabic characters, but you'd
             | have to do it on some other basis than "we moved away from
             | them a long time ago"; syllabaries are very common today
             | and don't cause problems.
        
               | CamperBob2 wrote:
               | OK, as I'm not an Egyptologist, let's substitute any
               | other language whose orthography is based on icons and
               | pictograms. There aren't many, and there's a reason for
               | that. They suck.
               | 
               | Certain Asian languages come to mind, something they
               | started to regret grievously around the time the
               | typewriter was invented.
        
               | thaumasiotes wrote:
               | OK, here's an example of some written language with a
               | heavy reliance on logograms:
               | 
               | > omg how r u doing that
               | 
               | > lmfao
               | 
               | > c u 2nite
               | 
               | (2nite is especially interesting because the icon is used
               | to represent just part of the word!)
               | 
               | This is mostly notable because the formal written system
               | didn't allow it, and the logographic forms were
               | introduced spontaneously as a result of large numbers of
               | people being literate. In other words, they are an
               | example of the direction of change pointing _toward_
               | logograms, not away from them.
               | 
               | > Certain Asian languages come to mind
               | 
               | Japanese is the only one that might fit this description.
        
         | teddyh wrote:
         | Sometimes called "Mystery meat navigation".
        
         | marcosdumay wrote:
         | Newer Android uses a hamburger, a square, and an arrow. It's
         | not obvious what they are, but the shapes are very mnemonic.
        
         | 1letterunixname wrote:
         | Words are terrible and provincial. Symbols are universal and
         | clear when used correctly and precisely.
        
         | Izkata wrote:
         | If you're using Samsung, they have an app called Good Lock that
         | lets you change the icons to pretty much whatever you want.
         | Mine are the same as the original Android icons: a curved back
         | arrow, a little house, and two overlapped rectangles.
         | Definitely agree the defaults are bad though.
        
       | wodenokoto wrote:
       | In defense of the ambiguity of digital toggles, I'd like to add
       | that this is unsolved on most, if not all, physical light
       | switches in homes and offices.
       | 
       | Despite having existed for more than 50 years and most people are
       | using multiple toggles a day with its labels, most people are
       | unaware of the meaning of power symbol
       | (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol)
        
         | master-lincoln wrote:
         | Really? For me this always made intuitive sense reading it as
         | one and zero, where zero would be off.
        
           | wodenokoto wrote:
           | You probably also work in IT and might even now what binary
           | is not to mention what boolean means.
        
             | master-lincoln wrote:
             | fair point
        
           | CalRobert wrote:
           | It always seemed backwards to me, since a circle should
           | represent a closed circuit
        
             | lupire wrote:
             | An open circuit would then be a C not a |
        
               | crazygringo wrote:
               | Those wouldn't be easily distinguishable though.
        
           | kragen wrote:
           | this is backwards from the perspective of digital logic
           | circuits
           | 
           | physical light switches toggle between closed-circuit and
           | open-circuit, not high and low voltage levels. 'on', where
           | current can flow, is a closed circuit; 'off' is an open
           | circuit
           | 
           | in digital logic, when there _is_ a correspondence between
           | closed /open and high/low, the correspondence is _virtually
           | always_ that closed is low and high is open. for example: ttl
           | inputs always treat open-circuit as high; the can bus and i2c
           | bus  "recessive" states (when nobody is transmitting) are
           | high; avrs have optional pullup resistors on their gpios but
           | no optional pulldowns, so if you want to connect a pushbutton
           | or toggle switch to a gpio, you have to connect it between
           | the pin and ground, not between the pin and vcc; 8051s'
           | 'quasi-bidirectional' i/o ports similarly feature a weak
           | pullup and a strong pulldown, so that, again, an open circuit
           | is a logic high level
           | 
           | (and normally high is 1, low is 0, though sometimes this
           | convention is also violated)
           | 
           | the only exception i know of is that 60-milliamp and
           | 20-milliamp digital current loop interfaces, as used on
           | teletypes, treat a closed circuit (current flowing) as a
           | logic 1 ('mark'), and an open circuit (no current flowing) as
           | a logic 0 ('space')
           | 
           | incidentally, 'closed circuit' and 'open circuit' are _also_
           | confusing. a closed circuit is  'closed' in the sense that a
           | plane curve is 'closed' if it divides the plane into an
           | inside and an outside region. on a closed curve, you can walk
           | around the whole circuit and return to your starting point
           | without turning around, which is in some sense what the
           | electrical current is doing. but of course actual electrical
           | circuits exist in three-dimensional space, where a 'closed'
           | curve does _not_ divide space into an inside and an outside
           | region, because you need a _surface_ for that. and in all
           | other contexts, something that is  'closed' is something that
           | does _not_ permit flow: a closed barn door, a closed window,
           | a closed valve, etc. nevertheless, it is far too late to
           | eliminate this two-dimensional flatland thinking from our
           | vocabulary
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | Oh, of course that must be what closed circuit meant.
             | 
             | For some reason I just thought "looks like the switches are
             | little doors, like in a floor plan, and they are all closed
             | now" and I never examined it.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | Most people haven't even heard of binary.
        
             | jodrellblank wrote:
             | Silicate chemistry is second nature to us geochemists, so
             | it's easy to forget that the average person probably only
             | knows the formulas for olivine and one or two feldspars.
             | 
             | https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2501:_Average_Fa
             | m...
             | 
             | See also this comment (
             | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39344935 ) "it's
             | pretty obvious" that computers use the opposite symbol than
             | the name says.
        
         | gsich wrote:
         | People are aware.
        
         | NeoTar wrote:
         | Isn't that a feature and not a bug for light switches?
         | 
         | It's not uncommon to have multiple light switches control a
         | single light socket - switching any of them changes the state
         | of the light, therefore you cannot consistently say state-x =
         | light on, state-y = light-off.
        
         | marginalia_nu wrote:
         | Because language works through association and analogy, you
         | don't actually need to know the etymology of a word or symbol
         | to use or understand it.
         | 
         | Any English speaker can understand perfectly well the words
         | manual, manufacture and manicure without ever reflecting on the
         | fact that "manus" in latin means "hand".
         | 
         | We clearly haven't needed to rename these words "handual",
         | "handufacture" and "handicure" for these concepts to be
         | understood by people who aren't fluent in Latin.
         | 
         | In much the same way, even a person who has never seen a floppy
         | disk will associate its likeness with the action of saving if
         | it appears next to enough save buttons.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | > you don't actually need to know the etymology of a word or
           | symbol to use or understand it.
           | 
           | Etymology, etc. helps to understand what other people mean
           | and have meant by the word, and what others will understand.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | No, it doesn't?
        
           | jodrellblank wrote:
           | > " _We clearly haven 't needed to rename these words
           | "handual", "handufacture" and "handicure" for these concepts
           | to be understood by people who aren't fluent in Latin._"
           | 
           | "manual" is "by-hand".
           | 
           | "hand-made" is the literal meaning of "manufacture" (make by
           | hand), if not the industrial meaning used today. From Old
           | English hand-wrought, apparently:
           | https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=handmade
        
         | btbuildem wrote:
         | While the NEC does not specify light switch toggle orientation,
         | there seems to be a general convention among electricians and
         | installers for the toggle switch to be positioned up for "on"
         | and down for "off."
        
           | ComputerGuru wrote:
           | Yes, until you throw a second switch in the same circuit.
           | Then you'll never know.
        
           | Austizzle wrote:
           | In the United States at least. I spent a few years in
           | Australia and it was universally the opposite!
        
         | thaumasiotes wrote:
         | > In defense of the ambiguity of digital toggles, I'd like to
         | add that this is unsolved on most, if not all, physical light
         | switches in homes and offices.
         | 
         | What? This has been solved for physical light switches since
         | _before_ physical light switches existed.
         | 
         | If the light is on, the switch is set to "light on". If the
         | light is off, the switch is set to "light off".
        
       | resters wrote:
       | A toggle button should show its current state. A checkbox is a
       | good example.
       | 
       | Muted []
       | 
       | vs
       | 
       | Muted [x]
       | 
       | It's pretty obvious.
       | 
       | What gets tricky is when designers create UI that does not have
       | as clear a connection between the word used and the visual
       | design, such as:
       | 
       | Mute Off [---( )]
       | 
       | Mute On [( )---]
       | 
       | I have no idea what either of these mean because they include the
       | action in the description of the state.
        
         | sfn42 wrote:
         | "Mute" "Unmute"
         | 
         | I want a button to tell me what it does if I click it. If you
         | want to show the current status that is a different thing, not
         | a button. A button exists to be clicked, it should communicate
         | what it will do if you click it.
        
           | NegativeK wrote:
           | Verbs, not nouns.
           | 
           | Which means making sure that the verb form doesn't sound like
           | the noun form.
        
           | navjack27 wrote:
           | So, while the button is not interacted with (unmuted) and not
           | hovered over you would like a mute button to be what? Would
           | you like it to be black and white with a microphone symbol
           | where the microphone is white and the background is black?
           | When you hover your mouse over it should a no symbol in red
           | appear over it which could appear black for color blind? When
           | you toggle this mute button should that no symbol stay on the
           | icon and invert all of the colors so now the background is
           | white the microphone is black and the no symbol is white?
           | 
           | I'm really confused by the concept of a button showing me
           | what a button should do All of the time because if that
           | button is showing me what the button should do then that
           | button is indicating to me that that button is doing what
           | that button is doing not what the button should be doing.
           | That's why there is a hover over state if you're using a
           | mouse things become more complicated when you're using touch
           | which is why I think the button should not communicate what
           | the button should do when interacted with but the current
           | state.
        
             | sfn42 wrote:
             | Why are you making this so complicated? The simplest
             | solution is just a button with text on it. But sure, maybe
             | you want a symbol instead, they do look nice and take less
             | space.
             | 
             | So when sound is playing, the button should have a symbol
             | that conveys "mute", like a speaker in a stop symbol. If
             | you hover over it, the tool tip should say "Mute" or
             | something to that effect.
             | 
             | If the button is clicked, then the sound is muted. Now you
             | could change to a symbol that conveys "unmute" like just a
             | speaker symbol. Or you could let go of the whole button
             | concept here because it's pretty clumsy and ambiguous, and
             | just use a toggle switch instead. Could just have the text
             | "Sound on" - "Sound off" on either side, or symbols if you
             | prefer that.
             | 
             | You should never assume that the user knows anything. The
             | UI should convey everything the user needs to know, trying
             | to use some sort of convention doesn't work because there
             | is no convention. Avoid using signal colors because as you
             | alluded to that also gets complicated.
        
         | krab wrote:
         | If there's enough space, a toggle emulation with two labels
         | works well.
         | 
         | Loudspeaker [()---] Crossed-out loudspeaker
        
           | ysavir wrote:
           | This is what I like to use. Two states with a clear selection
           | of one, all visible at all times.
        
         | deepsun wrote:
         | And should the sides switch in right-to-left scripts? :)
        
         | croes wrote:
         | A checkbox show both, the current state and the possibility in
         | form of a simple yes/no option.
         | 
         | A toggle button is confusing because I don't know the designers
         | intention unless the button shows both options beside it
         | 
         | Mute On[---()]Off
        
         | jodrellblank wrote:
         | > " _A checkbox is a good example. It 's pretty obvious._"
         | 
         | A check is a tick[1]. On a status page[2] a tick means
         | "working" and a cross means failed. The "pretty obvious" view
         | is that "Muted [x]" has failed in some way. To know any
         | different comes from learning computer UX, the opposite of
         | obvious. (Or is it "X marks the spot", that's the target I
         | should click if I desire "muted"?).
         | 
         | [1] Unicode U+2714 https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2714
         | 
         | [2] e.g. https://www.githubstatus.com/
        
       | serf wrote:
       | I just want it to mimic the physical thing if it's going to mimic
       | something at all.
       | 
       | A push button toggle stays clicked in, or better yet clicked in
       | and illuminated, to indicate that it's on.
       | 
       | a traditional 2 way toggle exposes the state that its' in by the
       | position of the knob relative to center.
       | 
       | I mean anyone can flip states around behind the scenes, but if
       | we're talking about a switch/wires/battery/light it all works out
       | as supposed. Let's follow that example.
        
       | thinkmassive wrote:
       | The Tesla app is horrible about this.
       | 
       | What does a greyish padlock icon indicate? Let me tap it twice to
       | cycle through states, then I'll click once more if the original
       | state needed to be toggled. If there's any delay in the car's
       | response, prepare to complete another lock/unlock cycle, more
       | slowly this time to be certain.
        
         | tshaddox wrote:
         | It's also inconsistent. From what I remember, the padlock
         | toggle shows the current state (an unlatched padlock means the
         | doors are unlocked, and pressing it will lock the doors), but
         | the trunk button shows the opposite (an open trunk means the
         | trunk is closed, and pressing it will open the trunk).
        
       | Agraillo wrote:
       | The designers of everyday things also fall into this trap. My
       | favorite example is the hammer drill, this kind should had the
       | mode switch. I have a very decent device but implementing the
       | same problem on/off approach showing and hiding the state. I
       | almost always pause before choosing the right one. The example of
       | the better design (mention in the stackexchange answers) is
       | visible at the hammer drill polish wiki page:
       | https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiertarka_udarowa
        
         | sojournerc wrote:
         | I have a welding mask with a "grind" mode that has the same
         | issue. Not exactly something you want to get wrong when
         | welding.
        
       | rjmunro wrote:
       | The absolute worst example of this I have seen is the Tesla
       | dashboard screen UI. It shows a car with labels on it, not
       | buttons, that say "Open". That unambiguously means that the
       | particular part is open. But that's not what it means. The labels
       | are in fact buttons to open the parts, and you have no way of
       | knowing.
        
         | dhc02 wrote:
         | Yes! I was just driving a borrowed Tesla this weekend and
         | several times I had a moment of confusion/panic because I
         | thought the trunks were both open.
        
         | actionfromafar wrote:
         | Can someone make a car which has _none_ of the complicated
         | stuff?
         | 
         | List of features I want:
         | 
         | - automatic transmission (if ICE)
         | 
         | - bluetooth and FM radio
         | 
         | - no self _steering_
         | 
         | - cruise control with "follow speed"
         | 
         | - not-batshit-insane self-brake-system (use whatever Volvo
         | uses, it works!)
         | 
         | - good airbags and decent structural integrity
         | 
         | - classic sedan height
        
           | semi-extrinsic wrote:
           | Oh look, it's the Dacia Sandero!
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | > cruise control with "follow speed"
           | 
           | If I'm reading you right, you want your car to follow the
           | speed of the car in front of you? Usually delivered by radar
           | assisted cruise control?
           | 
           | That's complicated stuff, and you'll probably get lane
           | keeping assistance too, because it's a package. At least on
           | my car with lane keeping, there's a big button in the center
           | console to disable it.
        
             | thedanbob wrote:
             | The last car I rented handled this package terribly. There
             | was a way to disable the lane assistance, but it was a
             | couple of steps and you had to perform them _every time you
             | started the car_ because it wouldn 't remember your
             | preference.
        
             | ikealampe200 wrote:
             | This is not particularly advanced. Mercedes offers
             | "Distronic" since 1999 and it seems Mitsubishi developed
             | something similar even around 1992.
             | [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_cruise_control]
        
               | delecti wrote:
               | Oh is _that_ what  "Distronic" does? I literally work
               | there on a backend system that has that term for one of
               | the features, and I've just never known. I always thought
               | it sounded like something AV related (it sounded "disc"
               | adjacent).
        
               | samatman wrote:
               | It is "disc" related, the discs in question are the brake
               | discs.
        
               | ChillyWater wrote:
               | Or, the system automatically keeps your car a specified
               | _distance_ from the vehicle in front of you.
        
             | watwut wrote:
             | Adaptive cruise control is fairly standard these days, even
             | cheaper cars have it.
             | 
             | You can easily turn lane keeping assistance off in my car.
             | I guess it is necessary, because lane assistance massively
             | sux when there is reconstruction. They are not really the
             | same hardware wise, one of them requires radar in front and
             | other camera thingy for lanes.
        
               | GeorgeDewar wrote:
               | The lane keep assist in my 2017 Leaf is awful. If I used
               | it, anyone would take me for a drunk driver as it drifts
               | to the edge of the lane and then corrects endlessly.
               | 
               | Thankfully it can be turned off, and it stays off.
        
           | furyofantares wrote:
           | No, you can't get a car with exactly the feature set you
           | specifically want and nothing more. This is because other
           | people want a different feature set. It's even true of things
           | that are vastly less expensive to produce than a car.
        
             | samatman wrote:
             | This is true in general (for all feature sets anyone might
             | want, there must exist a car with those features) but
             | doesn't have to be true in particular (for a given feature
             | set, there may exist a car with those features).
             | 
             | I suspect you have no idea if OP's feature set is available
             | on the market. I certainly do not.
        
               | furyofantares wrote:
               | I would certainly be willing to bet there's nothing with
               | speed-matching cruise control but none of the other
               | features that depend on related sensors and software. Let
               | alone one that also has the rest of the features and no
               | more.
        
           | superjan wrote:
           | They won't. The car maker has the Budget product and the
           | Premium product. The car maker wants to justify a high price
           | for the Premium product, so they put in all conceivable
           | features, useful or not. What you want is a Decent product.
           | If they add it to the product line, it would cannibalize
           | sales for the premium product, so they gain nothing. For the
           | same reason my wife's Premium electric toothbrush has a color
           | screen, shitty IOT bluetooth features and a terrible battery
           | life.
        
             | fckgw wrote:
             | All these features are available in a base model $20k
             | Hyundai Elantra though.
        
           | fnimick wrote:
           | Chevrolet Bolt EV? Physical buttons everywhere. No fancy
           | features. It just works.
        
           | Night_Thastus wrote:
           | Most cars have that feature list, as for the things you
           | _dont_ want, you can just toggle them off or not use them.
           | 
           | Though sedans are a dying breed, so I'd get one sooner rather
           | than later. Everyone and their brother wants SUVs/CUVs and
           | sedan offerings are getting slimer by the month.
        
             | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
             | Disabling a feature doesn't protect you from firmware bugs
             | or higher repair costs from the more complicated hardware
             | you have but are not using.
        
               | Night_Thastus wrote:
               | If you're not using the feature, then a bug in it would
               | be hard to manifest.
               | 
               | And as for the more complicated hardware, I am afraid
               | that ship has sailed.
               | 
               | Cars have become incredibly complex in the last couple of
               | decades. They are covered in sensors and filled with
               | computers to handle everything, from the injection of
               | fuel and shifting to acceleration and braking to
               | infotainment and climate control.
               | 
               | If you want Cruise Control with distance following that
               | means you get brake-by-wire and accelerator-by-wire with
               | a computer making decisions about when to do both.
               | 
               | You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
               | 
               | If you want a simpler car, then look to the 90's - they
               | still had computers, but obviously the technology was
               | more limited. You won't get radar cruise control or much
               | in the way of blutooth though, obviously. You can still
               | have an automatic sedan with pretty good safety. (Not as
               | good as modern, but decent)
        
           | fckgw wrote:
           | You're looking for literally any Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda,
           | Chevy or Mazda sedan. Hope this helps.
        
             | mywittyname wrote:
             | Automatic Emergency Braking and adaptive cruise are
             | difficult features to avoid. The IIHS dings vehicle safety
             | ratings if they do not have AEB. Because of that, even
             | entry level vehicles like the Elantra have AEB.
             | 
             | Almost every manufacture has committed AEB on their entire
             | lineup.
        
               | fckgw wrote:
               | They said they want adaptive cruise control but not lane
               | keeping. Most automaker allow you to disable the lane
               | keeping if you want while keeping cruise (my Ford does
               | this)
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | He asked for "no batshit insane" breaking system. Sane
               | systems that engage only when it is truly last moment
               | rather then overeagerly or randomly exists. My seat
               | basically never breaks despite having the feature -
               | because itnis setup for actual emergency.
               | 
               | Plus, you can turn it off.
               | 
               | You can always turn off lane control too.
        
           | stavros wrote:
           | Mercedes A-class 2014 is this car.
        
           | hbs18 wrote:
           | You've described a 15 year old BMW 3 Series.
        
           | skydhash wrote:
           | That's basically my 2001 Toyota Rav4 and my brother's 2010
           | Hyundai Creta.
        
         | ZitchDog wrote:
         | Yes, 100%! This is my second most frustrating UX gripe with the
         | Tesla trunk UX - the first being the super long animation you
         | have to wait through in order to open the trunk after putting
         | the car in park. Overall tesla UX is miles ahead of other cars,
         | but the little things like this are so frustrating!
        
           | fnimick wrote:
           | > Overall tesla UX is miles ahead of other cars, but the
           | little things like this are so frustrating!
           | 
           | IDK, I prefer my boring old UX of 'physical buttons on a
           | dashboard', plus it's a lot easier to interact with without
           | taking your eyes off the road ;)
        
         | amarant wrote:
         | Huh, I don't think it's confusing at all, the rendered car
         | clearly shows the current state of the trunk, and when you push
         | the open button, there's even an animation showing the trunk
         | opening.
         | 
         | To each their own I guess
        
         | ljsprague wrote:
         | Is this peculiar to English? For instance, in Spanish, the verb
         | and the adjective would be different words.
        
           | bckygldstn wrote:
           | Yes, it is unfortunate that in English the imperative
           | conjugation ("open this door") is typically the same as the
           | present participle verbal adjective ("this door is open").
           | 
           | In English you can also form an adjective from the past
           | participle ("this door is opened"). Using "opened" resolves
           | the ambiguity in one direction only: when you want the
           | adjective. But when you want the verb you'd have to add
           | context: perhaps "tap to open".
        
       | signaru wrote:
       | It is forgivable if the wrong choice is not so harmful (e.g.
       | play/pause a video) and the effect is reversible. There's an
       | e-commerce website I use that has an option to post product
       | reviews as anonymous with a "slide toggle" typical of mobile
       | devices. The only feedback is after the review gets posted which
       | cannot be undone. I just learned by experience, but it is always
       | confusing to interpret.
        
       | bee_rider wrote:
       | RIP Checkbox, 1990-2009, you were perfect and unambiguous but for
       | some reason smartphone designers hated you.
        
         | _0ffh wrote:
         | Right, or use a 3D look or colour or backlight effect to
         | indicate when a toggle is active.
        
         | denton-scratch wrote:
         | I agree that checkboxes are perfect; but that's because I never
         | try to fill forms on a smartphone. Native browser checkboxes
         | are often unusable on smartphones; too small to hit with a
         | thumb.
        
           | bee_rider wrote:
           | True.
           | 
           | It seems like an odd historical problem though. We could just
           | render checkboxes bigger or with more white space around
           | them, and make the touch area bigger in any case.
        
             | denton-scratch wrote:
             | Sure, you clould just fix checkboxes. But then you have to
             | deal with select boxes, which also work badly on
             | smartphones.
             | 
             | Then you have the modern smartphone-driven practice of
             | using multipart forms, with one field on each part. You
             | can't see the whole form at once; you eventually find out
             | that the very last field is a date-field with three badly-
             | behaved drop-downs that you can't interact with.
             | 
             | I just don't try to fill forms on my smartphone. In fact I
             | only use it as a (shock!) phone.
        
           | lowboy wrote:
           | The checkbox label is often my thumb's target. A pox on the
           | house of any dev who doesn't properly use a _for_ attribute.
        
           | mywittyname wrote:
           | Properly designed, the tapping/clicking the text should also
           | trigger the checkbox.
        
             | denton-scratch wrote:
             | > Properly designed
             | 
             | It shouldn't need designing; but I have a suspicion that an
             | unstyled HTML checkbox input doesn't behave like that.
        
               | pfg_ wrote:
               | It does as long as you mark the label as being for the
               | checkbox or put the checkbox inside the label, which you
               | are supposed to do.
        
         | kqr wrote:
         | This is extra silly because you can make what's effectively a
         | checkbox look really nice and toggle-y. Although this is a bad
         | example it shows that it doesn't have to be a square with a
         | check mark in it:
         | https://www.ranecommercial.com/legacy/hal/MobileHelp/Advance...
        
           | hombre_fatal wrote:
           | Switches are already ubiquitous on mobile UIs:
           | 
           | https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-
           | guideline...
           | 
           | But checkboxes and switches don't always make sense. You
           | don't always have room for e.g. "Light mode <switch>". Every
           | component that you give more room to takes room away from
           | other UI.
           | 
           | Rather than look at the obvious cases, the hard part is the
           | periphery of what's obvious.
        
           | alonsonic wrote:
           | Issue is that modern UX designed moved away from this type of
           | 3D buttons. There was a big transition from UIs using heavy
           | skeuomorphism to a more flat and digital look.
           | 
           | To achieve hat you're showing you need some depth to the
           | button. Hard to accomplish with today's design trends.
        
             | AlienRobot wrote:
             | It's things like this that make me think the way to make a
             | good UI is to look at what modern UIs do and do the exact
             | opposite.
             | 
             | 1. No spacing.
             | 
             | 2. Information-heavy cluttered screens.
             | 
             | 3. No auto-save. You have to click the save button to save.
             | 
             | 4. Colored icons. Colored interfaces. Not "tinted" a hue of
             | black or white. Actual vibrant colors. And not just one
             | color either! Two colors, at least.
             | 
             | 5. 3d.
             | 
             | 6. Main menus.
             | 
             | 7. border-style: ridge;
        
               | bee_rider wrote:
               | Sounds kind of hard to use on mobile, which is
               | indisputably a popular set of platforms.
               | 
               | No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Big
               | (resizable) UI elements with poke-ability are fine. Auto-
               | saving can be great depending on the application. Let's
               | just ditch the false simplicity and flatness.
        
               | AlienRobot wrote:
               | Every single time I'm on desktop and I see a GUI that
               | sucks, I know it's mobile's fault. Why this button so
               | big? Mobile. Why spacing? Mobile. Why this list of 6
               | clickable items with one line of text each takes up my
               | whole screen's vertical space? Mobile. Why no more status
               | bars and tooltips? Because you can't hover on mobile. Why
               | is the filter of this table below the table instead of
               | above the table's headers? Because the thumbs won't reach
               | the top on mobile. Why the headerbar buttons have no
               | labels? Because they wouldn't fit in the horizontal space
               | in mobile.
               | 
               | I'm really not a fan of mobile. If possible, I'd rather
               | ignore it completely and just let mobile users rotate
               | their screens.
        
               | adamwk wrote:
               | Screen size isn't the problem for mobile, it's tap
               | targets
        
               | FridgeSeal wrote:
               | Peak UX design was the WinAmp and Windows media player
               | skins of the Windows XP era.
               | 
               | They exhibit almost all of these properties, and they
               | were _glorious_ to use.
        
               | AlienRobot wrote:
               | Absolutely. I have a theory that "windows" are called
               | "windows" because of the 3D ridges at the borders. The
               | moment we stopped doing ridges, everything went the wrong
               | direction.
               | 
               | This translucent, rounded, acrylic, material, whatever,
               | it's just not fun. We had the technology for making
               | glorious media players in the year 2000. Where did our
               | technology go?
               | 
               | I'm on linux right now and I checked a bunch of desktop
               | environments and every single one I checked the themes
               | for (the theme browser sucks, by the way) what I see is
               | dark theme with a blue tint, light theme with a blue
               | tint, dark theme with a green tint, light theme with a
               | green tint. A Windows 95, XP, and 7 clone. And that's it?
               | 
               | It just blows my mind. I don't know if it's because the
               | theme browser sucks (the websites to browse the themes
               | also suck, by the way), but I can not find one theme like
               | XP but not XP. I'm left wondering where did all those
               | people who made so many beautiful, glorious, amazing
               | WinAmp themes go to. Did they become extinct? Are the
               | theming APIs too limited today to go all out? Is the
               | technology not there yet to have border-image in your
               | windows borders?
               | 
               | This is just so depressing. I'm hoping the pendulum
               | swings back in the next 10-20 years, and hopefully I'm
               | still alive by then to see some cooler GUIs.
        
               | skydhash wrote:
               | I remember modifying the UI of Virtual DJ 6 for friends
               | that wanted their logo on it. It was all bitmaps. And I
               | guess the different skins were 3D renders on existing DJ
               | decks. But they were beautiful, although there was a
               | period there were some issue when laptops were moving to
               | a wider ratio.
        
             | phkahler wrote:
             | >> To achieve hat you're showing you need some depth to the
             | button. Hard to accomplish with today's design trends.
             | 
             | This why some people complain about UI design "trends".
             | They elevate an aesthetic choice over clarity, usability,
             | or function (not sure which word is best here). Or in this
             | case it seems part of the push was to reduce the screen
             | space taken by a control.
        
         | pera wrote:
         | Who created the checkbox widget? System 1 (1984) had check
         | marks on the menu and "x boxes", which are equivalent, but not
         | checkboxes afaik
        
           | bee_rider wrote:
           | I actually have no idea, I made up 1990 completely, I bet it
           | is way too late. In any case, I guess it is just the
           | digitization of an existing UI element from paper forms,
           | right?
        
           | Someone wrote:
           | > System 1 (1984) had check marks on the menu and "x boxes",
           | which are equivalent, but not checkboxes afaik
           | 
           | I think it had (https://andymatuschak.org/files/papers/Apple%
           | 20Human%20Inter..., page 56)
           | 
           | I don't know whether those were the first, but
           | https://skeuomorphic.design/p/from-paper-ballots-to-
           | pixels-t... claims they were, in the sense that the Mac made
           | radio buttons different from toggle buttons.
           | 
           | Does anybody know in what cultures a checkmark would be
           | inappropriate, as that page claims?
        
             | pera wrote:
             | Thanks, that's a nice pdf: so what I called "x boxes" were
             | actually named "check boxes" (although they didn't use the
             | check mark symbol)
        
           | silon42 wrote:
           | Here are some samples from 1987... (CUA standard)
           | 
           | http://toastytech.com/guis/cua1987.html
        
         | klabb3 wrote:
         | Yes obviously, because checkboxes need accompanying text,
         | otherwise it's just a mystery fidget. Text on a small screen is
         | a problem for obvious reasons.
         | 
         | The you have the second problem: checkboxes were part of web
         | forms, where you have a submit button. So a whole generation of
         | users were taught the abstraction of "saving" your settings as
         | an explicit gotcha step. The checkbox didn't _do_ anything on
         | its own.
         | 
         | Very likely, Apple wanted to start over with an element that
         | was independent and immediate, in their preference panes. But
         | checkboxes would have worked too, in _preferences_ - but does
         | not solve the in-app problem:
         | 
         | The _icon_ toggle buttons are not mobile designers faults -
         | they existed way earlier, primarily known from text editors
         | (think the bold /italics toggles). Who messed them up so badly,
         | I don't know..
        
         | 83457 wrote:
         | A medical video conference / telehealth system my provider uses
         | has broken the checkbox. In their direct message interface they
         | change the a checkbox field label based on whether the box is
         | checked. Unchecked has the label as "Not Urgent" and checked is
         | "Urgent". On multiple occasions I have quickly checked the box,
         | to indicated as not urgent, then clicked send.
        
       | rconti wrote:
       | There are a number of ways to get this wrong. The shuffle button
       | in Spotify on our Tesla is a grey color, and you have to wonder
       | if it's dark ENOUGH a grey to indicate that it's on, or a light
       | grey to indicate that it's off. So then you go to toggle it on
       | and off to see the state change, but actually it's buggy so it
       | doesn't do anything.
       | 
       | When you finally get it to toggle on, you realize the shuffle
       | lines turn GREEN, not dark grey like most of the controls.
       | _facepalm_
        
         | 1letterunixname wrote:
         | Some UI designers do not understand design, e.g., affordances.
        
         | qingcharles wrote:
         | Also, the problem with buttons like this is that the shade of
         | grey depends on the angle you're looking at the screen, so you
         | end up moving your head around trying to figure out if it is
         | actually on or off.
        
       | lopkeny12ko wrote:
       | Why not just use a checkbox? Is anyone here a designer with a
       | serious answer to this?
        
         | bandergirl wrote:
         | _Cuz they ugly_
         | 
         | The dribblization of UI lead to a bunch of people trying to
         | make things pretty for their own benefit. Then they look at it
         | in Figma and it looks absolutely stunning. Never mind that
         | actually needs to be understood and used by someone, that's
         | irrelevant.
         | 
         | Just today I saw a HSL color slider on Twitter that was a
         | single hue slider with two half-arc sliders on the main
         | slider's handle: one above for saturation, one below for
         | lightness. It sounds like a joke but...
         | 
         | https://twitter.com/jh3yy/status/1756429165803246028
        
         | tweakimp wrote:
         | I think toggle switches are newer and therefore designers think
         | they are more fancy to use.
        
         | koito17 wrote:
         | I am not a designer, but I've always heard that the difference
         | between checkboxes and toggles is that toggles are expected to
         | immediately produce side effects whereas checkboxes aren't.
         | 
         | That is to say, clicking on a checkbox shouldn't immediately
         | mutate some state, whereas activating a toggle should.
        
       | syngrog66 wrote:
       | show an arrow from Now to Next state
       | 
       | kids: get off my lawn. lol
        
       | taeric wrote:
       | I'm surprised we are still iterating on ideas like this, to be
       | honest. Seems flight decks have been rather successful on
       | complicated dashboards for a long time. Same with boats. Why can
       | we take approximately no lessons from them?
        
         | sitzkrieg wrote:
         | overpriced ux designers
        
         | spyke112 wrote:
         | Perhaps what we do on a pc is not really that complicated or
         | critical compared to flying a plane or steering an oil tanker.
         | Just a thought.
        
           | taeric wrote:
           | I mean, sure? But, to that point, why discuss the
           | conventions? If the goal is to have a predictable interface,
           | it seems fair and in scope to study larger interfaces that
           | people have to read quickly.
        
             | spyke112 wrote:
             | Don't get me wrong I actually agree with you. I'd also love
             | to have more consistent ui's, but at the same time I get
             | why the business wants to differentiate it self from the
             | competition by not having a super effective "boring" ui.
             | 
             | What I'm getting at is that it's a lot more nuanced than
             | what I as a software developer might like.
        
         | ZitchDog wrote:
         | The interfaces you are talking about require years of training,
         | study and passing multiple tests to demonstrate proficiency. In
         | software UX we are talking about discoverability and
         | approachability for the untrained operator.
        
           | taeric wrote:
           | Most of the training is to know which ones need to be on and
           | which ones need to be off. Not how to read various buttons as
           | on or off. And the point there is they are able to rapidly
           | scan a dashboard to know what is on and off at a glance.
           | 
           | Similarly, sliders and levers help you see which ones are
           | maxed out and which ones are set at a rough 50% or similar.
        
           | samatman wrote:
           | Since failure to operate the controls correctly can get
           | hundreds of people killed, there are detailed regulations
           | governing how those controls must work.
           | 
           | OP is entirely correct that the UI field could learn a great
           | deal from those standards.
        
         | karaterobot wrote:
         | I mean, we do have solutions to this problem. You use them
         | every day. The problem is that, unlike air travel or the
         | military, nobody can say "everybody must do it this way". So, a
         | lot of people do it their own way.
        
       | sponaugle wrote:
       | I have some old NASA push button switches that have two bulbs in
       | them. When the switch is off both lights are off, when you click
       | the switch the yellow bulb comes on and lights up the switch, and
       | when the device you turned on actually turns on a green light
       | turns on ( and the yellow turns off ). The idea is you push the
       | button and the yellow state is the confirmation that you toggled
       | the switch, but the green is the confirmation that the action you
       | wanted occurred. Kind of an interesting 'state feedback'
       | mechanism.
        
         | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
         | I like it. Why doesn't our "industry" look at aviation/military
         | more often where miscommunication gets people killed.
        
           | ajmurmann wrote:
           | I think the answer is that "looking pleasant" is much more of
           | a goal for commercial software. In usability terms the much
           | denser GUIs of the 90s were arguable better in some ways than
           | what we frequently see today, especially for power users.
        
             | kfarr wrote:
             | Yes just like the design of car infotainment systems --
             | looking good resulted in the touch screen era. Luckily
             | we're finally realizing our mistake and a few automakers
             | are putting old school knobs back in.
        
         | kqr wrote:
         | This is a good one, and also what airplanes do[1]. These
         | problems are solved by people who care a lot about usability,
         | but computer people are slow to pick up this sort of stuff from
         | other fields.
         | 
         | Labels outside the switch also work.[2]
         | 
         | [1]: https://my737ng.com/wp-
         | content/uploads/2014/08/cp_mcp_header...
         | 
         | [2]:
         | https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/37/0a/2c370a3f4018cfa9c3ef...
        
           | pjot wrote:
           | My table saw has this as well. A green and red light, both
           | with off/steady/blink states that indicates information about
           | the blade and safety system.
        
             | bqmjjx0kac wrote:
             | Mine has this as well! I like the UX, but it's also kind of
             | crazy that they didn't think about red/green colorblind
             | users.
        
               | kqr wrote:
               | Are they incandescent or LED? Until recently red and
               | green were the only LEDs possible and some industries
               | move slowly on such things.
        
               | thr33 wrote:
               | colorblindness would have no effect on this ux pattern
        
             | 1-more wrote:
             | God are they ever nice saws too. Good for you big dog.
        
           | Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
           | > computer people are slow to pick up this sort of stuff from
           | other fields
           | 
           | Because computer people aren't optimizing for functionality,
           | intuitiveness, or really any sort of UX.
           | 
           | They're optimizing for some idea of "beauty" and whatever is
           | trendy.
        
             | mattmaroon wrote:
             | And you don't die if your mute switch is in the wrong
             | position at the wrong time.
        
           | sumtechguy wrote:
           | The real pain is this _WAS_ a solved problem in computers
           | too. Almost all of the GUI OS 's had a style guide. Usually
           | 2-3 pages at most (usually smaller) and fairly easy to
           | follow. Then everyone went bonkers and wanted to make their
           | own. Then dump that all into one desktop and good luck...
           | Every app is special.
        
         | pavon wrote:
         | A chunk of my early career was writing GUI software to control
         | and display state of remote hardware, and I quickly learned to
         | banish any "stateful" UI elements - those that retained their
         | own state and changed behavior based on that state, like
         | toggles, switches, check boxes, radio boxes, etc - because it
         | wasn't uncommon for the interface and hardware state to get out
         | of sync.
         | 
         | What I ended up settling on to replace them was a button for
         | each option, where the respective button would light up to
         | display the current state. For example, what would be an on/off
         | toggle became two buttons labeled on and off. Initially both
         | buttons were grey, and when the UI received SOH from the
         | hardware indicating that the state was on, the on button became
         | green, or for off, the off button became red. If communication
         | was lost for some time all the colors became desaturated, to
         | indicate the state was stale. When a button was pressed, the
         | old state continued to be displayed, but desaturated (for just
         | that button set), until a new state was received back. The user
         | could always command the system on or off at any time (by
         | clicking the respective button) regardless of what state the UI
         | though it was in, unlike a toggle which only lets to you change
         | to the "other" state. Likewise, radio buttons were replaced
         | with a series of buttons labeled with their state, and the one
         | the UI thought was current was colored (using blue for most
         | "neutral" states and green/yellow/red if the state had a
         | good/warn/bad meaning to the operator that they wanted to
         | highlight).
         | 
         | Despite the atypical design, I found that operators generally
         | understood the interface without training - buttons looked like
         | buttons so they must be clickable. The spacing of buttons made
         | it clear they were a set, and since grey was the default color
         | of everything in 90s UI, the button that was colored
         | differently stood out and must be the current state. I don't
         | know if that would be the case today, where UI element can be
         | any color chosen for aesthetics or funneling and only sometimes
         | communicate information.
         | 
         | I did experimented with displaying both the commanded state and
         | received state in various ways (akin to NASA's buttons), but
         | all ended up being more confusing.
        
       | mjamesaustin wrote:
       | For an interface with hover interaction, a toggle button should
       | show its current state by default and then on hover show the
       | state it will switch to. This design pattern affords
       | discoverability through safe interaction with the element.
       | 
       | Unfortunately that design pattern fails for touch interfaces,
       | which increasingly are our primary method of interaction.
        
       | wforfang wrote:
       | Tesla makes this mistake with their ambiguous "lock" button on
       | the iOS app. The button toggles between an open/closed padlock
       | icon. I often lock the doors remotely and since I can't
       | physically see the car to confirm, I get paranoid about whether
       | the icon is representing state or action.
        
       | lxe wrote:
       | We had radio buttons forever, but no, let's complicate things.
        
       | Macha wrote:
       | This is a problem for forms where companies are legally required
       | to follow the users instructions but may not want to. I find
       | myself not trusting them to not pick deliberately unintuitive
       | interpretations. Think the kind of designer that comes up with
       | "check this box to receive transactional emails but not marketing
       | emails", when an unchecked box leads to marketing and
       | transactional emails.
        
       | alpaca128 wrote:
       | The only two good suggestions I saw were radio buttons as well as
       | toggles with labels on the left & right (so basically two merged
       | radio buttons).
       | 
       | I think the play/pause button in media apps is an acceptable
       | exception simply because it's obvious whether it's playing or not
       | - you could even use it without recognizing the symbol, if music
       | is playing you know a click will pause it.
        
       | apapapa wrote:
       | I don't know how developers manage to make simple toggle switches
       | confusing and it makes me scared of their code but sometimes I
       | think it's done on purpose as a dark pattern (when you
       | unsubscribe to spam for example)
        
       | User23 wrote:
       | UX novelty for its own sake is annoying. Just use a checkbox.
        
       | 1970-01-01 wrote:
       | There should be no ambiguity here! A toggle button is an analogue
       | for a physical switch. Unless the switch state is dependent on
       | other switches, it must always display its current state. i.e.
       | ENABLED is always true unless POWER is OFF.
        
         | kortex wrote:
         | There is ambiguity in the physical world. Some audio equipment
         | have what's called a ground lift. It physically disconnects the
         | ground conductor between two devices, and it's usually a single
         | push-toggle in/out button. I've seen some devices with "Ground
         | On/Off" - does that mean grounded (not lifted) or not grounded
         | (lifted)? IIRC one of the DI boxes I've used is the opposite of
         | what you'd expect - "Off" means lift is off, meaning ground
         | loop is connected. The sensible devices have two states
         | "Lift/Gnd".
        
           | 1970-01-01 wrote:
           | That is a poor design choice. VERB STATE TRUE is standard for
           | every toggle switch on all my hardware, including prosumer
           | amps. Changing this can be deadly, and was found to be part
           | of the reason for the 737 MAX going down in 2019:
           | 
           | https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
           | aerospace/boein...
        
       | ww520 wrote:
       | I usually make a toggle button reflects its current state and
       | shows the next state in some other way, like in the hover over
       | tooltip or small subscript text. That means a toggle updates two
       | things, the button itself and the tooltip.
        
       | mrighele wrote:
       | The main issue with toggle buttons is that you have an object
       | that at the same contain the state of the system and the action
       | to change it.
       | 
       | The consequence is that it is not clear if the "ON" that you see
       | on it is the current state (so pressing on it will turn it to
       | "OFF"), or the action that you will invoke when you press it.
       | 
       | The solution is to separate (part of) state and action, and this
       | can be done in a few ways. One possibility is to do like one of
       | the answers in the link suggests, and write the label _outside_
       | the button. If you don't have a switch but a toggle button (like
       | the teams example in some other comment), leave the icon alone,
       | and change some other properties of the button (for example
       | leaving it pressed to signal the "ON" state, like it has been
       | done for decades without any issue....)
        
         | vleaflet wrote:
         | System sound properties in Windows 11 has an option "Allow apps
         | and Windows to use this device for audio" and a button labeled
         | "Don't allow" next to it. So what is the current state? I have
         | no idea.
        
       | tootie wrote:
       | The top answer references About Face 2.0 which I read at the time
       | and it's still probably the best book on user experience design.
       | I think there's newer editions, but the principles it laid out
       | were really the fundaments that I still live by.
        
       | brudgers wrote:
       | Yes.
       | 
       | Or both...like a real world toggle switch.
       | 
       | Or have user configurable behavior (an idea that seems to be
       | mostly out of fashion among designers...get off my lawn).
        
       | continuational wrote:
       | I think the iOS switch controls are pretty easy to read, even
       | though the only real clue to the state is that off is gray and on
       | is colored.
        
       | SkyMarshal wrote:
       | Should show both, just as analog switches do. You want it to
       | clearly unmistakably show the current state, but also the state
       | to which it will change.
       | 
       | Apple has really nailed that with its sideways slider toggles.
       | You can clearly see where the toggle is currently, what it will
       | change to, and whether the current setting has made some feature
       | active (blue background inside the slider) or inactive (grey
       | background inside the slider).
        
       | johnea wrote:
       | It should display the current state, of course.
       | 
       | Because when it's not being clicked, it is a status indicator...
        
       | croes wrote:
       | >Flip-flop button controls are very efficient.They save space by
       | controlling two mutually exclusive options with a single control.
       | 
       | Compared to what? Definitely not a checkbox.
       | 
       | The problem of a checkbox is just it's not very visually
       | appealing but pretty good on carrying zhe necessary information.
        
       | pcwelder wrote:
       | The second answer is the only correct solution.
        
       | DanHulton wrote:
       | Easy. It should be a checkbox.
       | 
       | (If checkboxes are unavailable in your design system, you should
       | have an unambiguous label next to it saying "On" or "Off", or
       | better, describing the current state of the system in the
       | terminology of the system, like "Background Noise Cancellation
       | Enabled". But having a control label and a status label _should_
       | be a clue that you should just be using a checkbox.)
        
       | unsupp0rted wrote:
       | When disambiguation matters, I always default to a label that
       | says "press to ~".
        
       | MattGrommes wrote:
       | One of the worst cases of this is the 'Airplane mode' toggle on a
       | Kindle. Airplane mode turns off wifi but the icon is an airplane
       | that says 'On' when airplane mode is on. When you click it, it
       | turns to 'Off'. But what you really want to do is turn the wifi
       | off and on, which is the opposite of the icon. 'On' means the
       | wifi is off, 'Off' means the wifi is on. Terrible.
        
         | zamadatix wrote:
         | Airplane mode status and Wi-Fi status are separate statuses.
         | Airplane mode can be on and it tells you nothing one way or the
         | other about the actual state of Wi-Fi. This ultimately comes
         | down to some Kindles being like phones and having more than 1
         | radio where you may want airplane mode on except for the Wi-Fi
         | radio if you plan on using in flight Wi-Fi.
         | 
         | Airplane mode is a convenience to conserve battery during a
         | flight. If you judge it by how well it acts as a universal
         | radios on/off switch it will measure accordingly.
        
       | thih9 wrote:
       | It also works if the button is not labeled, as long as the state
       | is clearly visible in the environment and the link is clear.
       | 
       | Consider the light switch - if there's just one, it's the best UI
       | ever. You know what to do to turn the lights off, just flip the
       | closest switch. Obviously if there's more than one then it's the
       | worst UI ever.
       | 
       | Another example, a smartphone's side button (screen on/off).
        
       | layer8 wrote:
       | This wasn't an issue when buttons were 3D. They had an icon (or
       | text) indicating what they activate, and were rendered depressed
       | when active and raised when inactive. Some color could optionally
       | be added to the icon to reinforce the active state.
        
       | brianstorms wrote:
       | Any Tesla owner can relate to this, given the wide variety (read:
       | no consistency, no standards) of toggle buttons the car's UI
       | utilizes.
       | 
       | For one, the HVAC. One button, showing temperature, which upon
       | touched the system will react differently to depending on how you
       | touch it and for how long. Touch it briefly, you get a little
       | popup. Touch it slightly longer, and (hopefully, not guaranteed
       | though) you get a bigger panel with full HVAC controls. Touch and
       | hold for a couple seconds, and (hopefully, not guaranteed though)
       | you turn off the HVAC if it's on. ALL WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING AND
       | SUPPOSED TO WATCH THE ROAD. And if your hand/eye coordination is
       | slightly off (and hey, when you're driving, going over bumps,
       | etc, it very likely is) if you mis-aim by even a millimeter, you
       | may touch another button and not realize it and do something
       | unintended.
       | 
       | Another disaster: Tesla's entire connect-a-Bluetooth-device UX is
       | one of the worst mishmashes of disastrous UI design I have ever
       | seen in a shipping product, at least the 2012-2022 Model S
       | implementation. Just one example, a button label down at the
       | bottom right that still says "Connect" long after the device is
       | already connected, but meanwhile elsewhere on the opposite side
       | of screen, up top at the left, that says "Connecting..." then
       | indicates the connection is made. All this in a UI that you only
       | have a split second to glance at because it's in a CAR and you
       | very well might be DRIVING. The Tesla Bluetooth UI could fill an
       | entire chapter of a book on UI, it is so magnificently bad. Maybe
       | I should write it.
        
         | sgustard wrote:
         | Tesla's mobile app features inconsistent toggles right next to
         | each other!
         | 
         | - A closed padlock means the doors are locked. Tapping it
         | unlocks the doors.
         | 
         | - The word "Open" on the trunk means the trunk is closed.
         | Tapping it opens the trunk.
        
           | brianstorms wrote:
           | Yes, so true! The inconsistencies and non-standardization
           | continues in Tesla's mobile app. There are many other
           | examples there too.
        
         | esafak wrote:
         | Actually Bluetooth works well in my 2023 Model Y, and I am very
         | pleased because it did not in my old Audi and Ford. There has
         | to be something seriously messed up with the Bluetooth spec if
         | implementations are always so bad.
        
         | willsmith72 wrote:
         | you _should_ write it, i always find these kinds of writeups
         | fascinating, and tesla (therefore elon) being the subject would
         | only make for more general interest
        
       | avgcorrection wrote:
       | Not directly related but Bitbucket cloud has made some recent
       | update where they started prioritizing reviewers over submitters
       | in pull requests. One change is that you by default get the "I'm
       | reviewing" filter turned on by default. Which I have to turn off
       | most of the time. Anyway, sometimes I try to turn it off but
       | _then it is toggled_ (it was off). What's going on? Well, the
       | normal interface is that it's a combobox where no-text means no
       | filter--that's where the I'm Reviewing by-default resides. But on
       | a slightly different pull request view--which looks almost the
       | same--the UI element is the same kind of thing... except here the
       | combobox gets a black background _when toggled_! And the default
       | is to show some option like I'm Reviewing but on a white
       | background, which means not-toggled...
        
       | e40 wrote:
       | Google's Youtube TV. The UI infuriates me. To this day I can't
       | remember which state the toggle is in. I do know it's the
       | opposite to every other app on my Apple TV.
        
       | ok123456 wrote:
       | Use a skeuomorphic toggle switch modeled off a PDP-8/e panel
       | toggle switch.
        
       | riwsky wrote:
       | I go back and forth on this one
        
       | macspoofing wrote:
       | Current state. Always current state.
        
       | mathgradthrow wrote:
       | In means yes out means no, avoid double negatives.
        
       | p1mrx wrote:
       | When I designed a lock/unlock button for my app, I added an arrow
       | to indicate _what action occurs_ when you click the button:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZmwkn-2rw&t=117s
       | 
       | For an unmute button, you could have a microphone with a line
       | through it, and an arrowhead indicating that clicking the button
       | will remove the line. Then the mute button could show a
       | microphone with an arrowhead pointing inward from the corner,
       | indicating that a line will be drawn.
        
       | jonplackett wrote:
       | I demand EU legislation!
        
       | mark_undoio wrote:
       | I once worked on an Optical Image Stabilisation system for mobile
       | phones. I'd updated the stock Android camera app to show some
       | icons from marketing for when the shake compensation was on /
       | off.
       | 
       | The icon for when compensation was on was a shaky camera. When it
       | was off, it was a shaky camera with a line through it...
       | 
       | Except, we asked, wouldn't the other way round make more sense?
       | Doesn't line through shaky camera suggest we're removing the
       | shake?
       | 
       | We ended up using the icons and just colouring them green for
       | "on" and red for "off" and hoping people would figure out what we
       | meant. And, yes, that would _still_ be unhelpful for colour blind
       | users!
       | 
       | User interfaces are hard.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-12 23:00 UTC)