[HN Gopher] How do you accidentally run for President of Iceland?
___________________________________________________________________
How do you accidentally run for President of Iceland?
Author : simonw
Score : 204 points
Date : 2024-04-29 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (uxdesign.cc)
(TXT) w3m dump (uxdesign.cc)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Imagine living in a world so wonderful that you actually had to
| look on _relatively_ obscure web pages to find such UI screw-
| ups...
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "People don't read" should be tattooed on the back of every
| designer's hand.
|
| Of course, they won't read it before they design something that
| requires deep engagement through reading.
| educaysean wrote:
| Just the designers? Tattoo it on the back of everyone's please
| btilly wrote:
| Is there any point in tattooing it on the back of the hands
| of people who don't read?
|
| That said, https://readabilityformulas.com/readability-
| scoring-system.p... is a good sanity check. Over half of
| people can't read text above a grade 8 readability. Worse
| yet, we aren't conscious of the effort that reading takes.
| Not until we are struggling. So competent people have little
| sense of the barriers they create.
| teddyh wrote:
| "1. Users don't have the manual, and if they did, they wouldn't
| read it.
|
| 2. In fact, users can't read anything, and if they could, they
| wouldn't want to."
|
| -- <https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/26/designing-for-
| peop...>
| pmontra wrote:
| 3. And if they do read something, they don't understand what
| they read, either because it's poorly written or because they
| start from different assumptions than the ones the writer had
| in mind.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| I like to think about design as a communication medium.
|
| So for most stuff the manual goes straight to the shelf.
| Unless it is something particularly powerful or complex, I
| see having to refer to the manual as a failure in UX design.
|
| So yeah, I don't want to refer to the manual.
| klyrs wrote:
| Also, a good warning sticker to put on books
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| But who would read the tattoo?
| kome wrote:
| Good luck to aunt Helga!
| themaninthedark wrote:
| >Don't make people think or read too much -- they've got things
| to do
|
| That is great an all but when you are endorsing someone for a
| serious position of power, shouldn't we want them to be engaged
| and thinking?
| meowster wrote:
| Yes, but presumably those people read it and registered
| knowingly. It's the people who did _not_ want to run for
| presidency that did not read.
| h1fra wrote:
| it's not a vote, it's the possibility for a candidate to
| participate in the election. imo we have the same process in
| france (slightly more complexe) this is just a process to pre-
| eliminate jokes and unserious people then you still need a
| regular campaign
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I understand that it is not a vote but it is basically
| signing an online petition.
|
| Here is the expected behavior: The prospective candidate asks
| someone to support them and sends them the link. The
| supporter is supposed to scroll the list, find the candidate
| and click to support them.
|
| This is failing because the first element that the supporter
| sees is the register link.
|
| I do think that the redesigned page looks better but in my
| view endorsing someone or signing a petition is not a task
| that someone should take lightly.
| kgermino wrote:
| That's fair, but why would they see (what they think is)
| "log in to endorse someone" as the part of the process
| which requires deliberative thought?
|
| Yes they should consider who and whether to endorse, they
| should probably check to make sure they're doing the
| endorsement correctly, but if you're looking for the Log In
| button to do the endorsement and you see what looks like a
| normal EULA above a prominent Log In button of course some
| percentage of people are going to skim over that.
| vidarh wrote:
| You shouldn't take it lightly, but you may already have
| decided you want to when you arrive at the page, and then a
| bunch of text will at least for some seem like it is an
| annoying obstacle to doing what you've already thought
| through.
| pimlottc wrote:
| To me, endorsing someone to run is a much much lower
| threshold than actually voting for them. Anyone should have
| the ability to run for office in a democracy, doesn't mean
| I want them to win.
| eastbound wrote:
| In France at least, there is a really high pressure on
| all people in power to not endorse candidates of opposing
| parties.
|
| The excuse is always "But he poses a threat to
| democracy", but that is the very proof that the person is
| not a comedian, and thus, by your standards, should be
| allowed to run. And heck, be elected, because nothing is
| a threat to democracy more than preventing people from
| voting the option they want (ask UK who ran 4 votes
| before admitting that the citizen wanted to leave; heck,
| ask France, who kept voting for their king, so the
| democratic forces killed hundreds of thousands of citizen
| (Lyon's population was slashed by 2), until the
| parliament has had enough that the French kept voting for
| the king instead of voting for the guardians of the
| revolution and finally guillotined the king - yes, most
| democracies were born by killing the characters that the
| people wanted to elect).
| user_7832 wrote:
| > That is great an all but when you are endorsing someone for a
| serious position of power, shouldn't we want them to be engaged
| and thinking?
|
| If you want to endorse someone and get a political SMS to
| endorse them you've probably already done the thinking of "whom
| do I want to vote for". What they're trying to do is just
| support someone. I suspect many people did not even realize
| there was an option there to "run for prez".
| tflol wrote:
| in the United States we proved that is not necessary traits for
| leader yet functional infrastructure, intelligence, and
| military
| noashavit wrote:
| > Be wary of generic buttons. lol
| logrot wrote:
| Perhaps this button shuld have said "Run for president!"
|
| Exclamation mark in this case is justified IMHO.
| barrenko wrote:
| My college's login form has "don't remember me" checkmark :).
| noashavit wrote:
| that's clever!
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| This is bad/confusing design for sure. Add this to the (probably)
| huge list of examples.
|
| I remember there was a terrible UX error a while back in Hawaii
| wasn't there?
|
| And the "butterfly ballot" issue in the 2000 election is another.
| jarofgreen wrote:
| This one?
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/hawaii-mi...
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Yes. Crazy. False positive missile alerts are kind of
| upsetting to people
| ljf wrote:
| And link to the butterfly ballot
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/19/bad-ballot-d...
| imzadi wrote:
| For a clear illustration of how much that ballot screwed Al
| Gore, look at Pat Buchanan's vote in Palm Beach county,
| compared to every other county. He clearly got 2000+ votes
| that were meant for Al Gore. Gore lost by less that 550
| votes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia.
| ..
| pquki4 wrote:
| I never understand why people think the following "fire
| extinguisher inside" sticker is a good idea:
|
| https://www.firesupplydepot.com/fire-extinguisher-inside-lab...
|
| To me it is the same thing as the La La Land fiasco.
| greenavocado wrote:
| When a fire breaks out and you begin to panic the stickers help
| reduce cognitive load by instinctually guiding people to
| cabinets containing fire fighting equipment. What is the
| problem?
| Symbiote wrote:
| Perhaps the point is the text? The European version of that
| sticker has a picture of an extinguisher, sometimes with text
| in the local language underneath.
| Detrytus wrote:
| Is picture better though? This actually looks like a bottle
| of soda next to a Christmas tree:
| https://www.brady.eu/signs/iso-7010-sign-fire-
| extinguisher-c...
|
| Even panicked people can still read and a big "FIRE" word
| is actually quite easy to recognize, unlike the picture
| above.
| cess11 wrote:
| We learn that symbol and others before we learn to read.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| You get exposed to the symbol for a fire extinguisher
| _that_ much as a child? I would expect encountering it
| _at some point_ not before reading.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I took it to be a joke, but the symbol will be shown in
| several places around a nursery/kindergarten. It's also
| designed to be noticed, and printed on a reflective
| (often glow-in-the-dark) material.
|
| https://www.holytrinity.herts.sch.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2020... (primary school corridor).
|
| https://www.building-blocks-
| nurseries.co.uk/uploads/rucV7eaP... (nursery corridor).
| Symbiote wrote:
| Even if you can't read, the meaning of the symbol is
| clear as it's always seen next to a fire extinguisher.
|
| The fire part is also on the emergency exit sign.
|
| I don't know the word for fire in Hungarian, but I will
| recognise these symbols next time I'm in Budapest.
| javawizard wrote:
| How on earth is this related to the article?
|
| Those stickers seem like an example of _good_ and _obvious_
| design.
|
| Am I missing something?
| simonw wrote:
| What could make them a bad idea? Seems like a piece of
| information people only need very rarely but when they DO need
| it they need it to be as instantly obvious as possible.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >What could make them a bad idea?
|
| An arsonist can get rid of all the fire extinguishers before
| setting their fire!
| aspenmayer wrote:
| > To me it is the same thing as the La La Land fiasco.
|
| You mean the movie? What was the fiasco? I haven't seen the
| movie but hear good things.
| stevage wrote:
| A reference to the mishap at the Oscars I assume.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| I guess I still don't understand OP then, as the
| presumptive cause of that mishap was the design of the
| envelopes text being hard to read; if anything, having a
| sign that clearly says "fire extinguisher inside" alongside
| iconography is better than simply having vague icons.
|
| In fact, I'm further confused by the La La Land reference,
| as the Academy redesigned the envelopes specifically to
| avoid this issue arising again.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_Awards#Best_Pict
| u...
|
| > The design of the envelopes could have been a factor. The
| envelopes were redesigned this year to feature red paper
| with gold lettering that specified the award enclosed,
| rather than gold paper with dark lettering. That could have
| made the lettering harder to read. The Academy of Motion
| Picture Arts and Sciences, not PwC, is responsible for the
| design and procurement of the envelopes.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/business/media/pwc-
| oscars...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170228032107/https://www.nyti
| m...
| jannyfer wrote:
| > Many of these people are seriously vying for president (yep, my
| aunt Helga), some of them have undoubtedly signed up as a joke
| (nope, not the comedian)
|
| Reykjavik had a comedian as mayor:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/jon-gnarr-come...
|
| His memoir was a good light read. Poignant and hilarious.
| r00fus wrote:
| Comedians would actually make great politicians because the
| overlapping skillset is quite similar.
| p0ckets wrote:
| Zelenskyy seems to have risen to the occasion.
| r00fus wrote:
| Also Al Franken was a US Senator.
| joemi wrote:
| Pretty sure he's the same one mentioned vying for president.
| His name showed up in the list when I visited the page.
|
| (I will always love the fact that a prominent politician in
| Iceland used to be in the Sugarcubes with Bjork.)
| arnarbi wrote:
| He's also the one running for president.
|
| https://grapevine.is/news/2024/04/03/comedian-and-former-rey...
| irrational wrote:
| The thing that surprises me the most is the page is in English. I
| know nearly everyone in Iceland is very fluent in English, but
| they all speak and read Icelandic too.
| einherjae wrote:
| Both English and Icelandic versions are available (potentially
| hidden in the burger menu on mobile):
| https://island.is/forsetaframbod
| crote wrote:
| That's very common in smaller countries. The government exists
| to serve its citizens, not the other way around. When you know
| a significant minority is less than fluent in your somewhat-
| obscure local language, providing a translation for that
| minority is almost a no-brainer.
|
| For example: I am a Dutch citizen. Due to the European Union I
| have the right to live and work in Iceland. If I were to move
| there, I'd gain the right to vote in local elections (not
| national ones, gotta be a citizen for that) - without speaking
| a word of Icelandic. I'd also have to do taxes, renew my
| driver's license, and all the other government stuff.
|
| Either I and the thousands like me are going to use Google
| Translate and screw it up, or they'll just have one of the many
| bilingual workers provide an official translation. It makes a
| lot of sense to just translate _all_ official government pages,
| making an exception for this specific page is probably more
| work than just translating it too.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Also because Europe, thanks to the frequency of jus sanguine,
| people like me can be born and raised in Canada but be a
| citizen of some European country because my parents were born
| in its predecessor country many decades ago. So I'm eligible
| to vote (tho I don't), but minimally speak that language and
| have spent minimal time there.
|
| I'd also assume Google Translate will do better translating
| from English to $OtherLanguage than Icelandic to
| $OtherLanguage. So makes sense to put up a translation into
| English (or other common language) and make sure it's
| correct.
| dhosek wrote:
| I would tend to guess that the reverse of your assumption
| about Google Translate is true. The translations _from_ an
| uncommon language available for training will, by far,
| outnumber the translations _to_ that language.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| But the translations _from_ an uncommon language _to a
| different_ uncommon language will still be far more rare.
| wasmitnetzen wrote:
| Somewhere around 7% of people in Iceland don't speak
| Icelandic[1][2].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Iceland [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language
| haukur wrote:
| English has become entrenched as the de facto second official
| language of Iceland. It's a very depressing trend for the
| conservation of Icelandic, and the ongoing promotion of English
| will only continue to exacerbate its decline.
| dhosek wrote:
| I remember in the 80s when the Nordic TeX Users Group was
| formed, they did all of their official communications in
| English so as not to privilege any of the national languages
| of their membership.
|
| Similarly, English is a standard language in India in part
| because of the linguistic diversity of the country1 and being
| an outsider language means that communications in English
| don't privilege any of the indigenous ethnic groups, although
| it seems that English usage has been dropping in favor of
| English.
|
| [?]
|
| 1. English usage was supposed to have been phased out fifteen
| years after independence, but the mandated sunset was changed
| by constitutional amendment in 1963 (apparently a year after
| the sunset date(!)). India has 22 scheduled languages--i.e.,
| languages receiving constitutional recognition and
| encouragement--but there are 122 major languages with more
| than 10,000 speakers. I think India wins the prize for the
| greatest linguistic diversity among the nations of the world.
| jononor wrote:
| Would you prefer another second language, or that people
| refuse fo speak anything but Icelandic?
|
| Jeg snakker norsk, men det er alikevel vanskelig a forsta
| islandsk!
| remram wrote:
| Honestly this is worse than a "design issue" of the button styles
| or "people not reading" here.
|
| "Register to collect endorsements" does not explicitly say whose
| endorsements. It is possible to read this sentence as a (slightly
| odd) way to say "Register to have your endorsements collected".
|
| "Collect" is a rather ambiguous verb, if I saw a button on a
| different website saying "register to collect favorites", I would
| understand that the website is building the collection, from my
| clicking on items... not that others will fav my profile.
|
| "Register as a candidate to collect endorsements" would have been
| much clearer, whether the visitor read the preceding block of
| text or not.
| golergka wrote:
| I assumed the page was in Icelandic and the author translated
| the UI for his english-speaking audience?...
| luplex wrote:
| Nope, there definitely is an english-language version, at
| least of the site that's live now.
|
| https://island.is/en/presidential-election-candidates
| arnorhs wrote:
| Or simply: "become a president"
| titanomachy wrote:
| I think Amazon has a patent on "becoming a president in one
| click", you might have to pay them some royalties.
| stcredzero wrote:
| I keep on noticing moments bad UX creeping into apps, more and
| more, for little possible benefit. Do frontend people simply not
| think about 2nd and 3rd order consequences anymore?
|
| Here's an example: Disappearing affordances. For some reason, the
| button to remove the background from Google Meet went from being
| its own "Remove Background" button, to all background thumbnails
| becoming a toggle button.
|
| This is fine, so long as the selected background is visible. But
| if it's not, perhaps because the selected background is outside
| the viewport of the scrollable selector, then what's happened, is
| that the affordance of the "Remove Background" button simply
| disappeared.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Clear issue is that why are these not separate systems or pages
| entirely. Registering for this process should be entirely
| separate from using it. And if also paper forms are accepted,
| whole process should need more tracking from canditate.
| joemi wrote:
| For a country whose population is just 399,189 (according to
| 2024 census), I don't think what you propose is necessary.
|
| Edit to add: I'm not sure if you added the "or pages" later or
| if I just missed it when replying, but my response was
| specifically about the suggestion that they should be separate
| systems. Separate pages totally makes sense, and I do think
| that's a good solution.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Yeah, it was actually neatly resolved here by applying
| separation of concerns and just doing the totally different
| things on different pages. People wanting to endorse a
| candidate are not the same as people wanting to _be_ a
| candidate.
| simonw wrote:
| They are now - the site was redesigned once this problem became
| clear!
| falcor84 wrote:
| That site clearly had UX issues and I'm glad it was redesigned,
| but I disagree with your statement in principle. I think it
| would actually be great for democracy if every time you were
| asked to support some official, you had a call-to-action for
| taking their role.
|
| On that note, I don't see any issue whatsoever with 82 people
| running for presidency - why not more? "Politics are too
| serious a matter to be left to politicians" -Charles de Gaulle
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > On that note, I don't see any issue whatsoever with 82
| people running for presidency
|
| I wouldn't have an issue if the election used ranked choice
| voting.
|
| Otherwise, however, it could be a disaster, with the winning
| candidate only having a tiny percentage of the vote.
| saevarom wrote:
| In Iceland, the president is chosen by simple majority of
| votes. The sitting president got about 39% of the vote.
| There were 9 candidates. Of course, this problem is usually
| brushed off saying that this is a largely powerless office,
| the prime minister and his cabinet hold the executive
| power.
| saulpw wrote:
| A majority of votes would be 50.1%. More votes than any
| other candidate is called a plurality.
| isoos wrote:
| Nit: Approval voting (yes/no for each candidate) is easier
| to implement and also understand. I couldn't rank 82
| people, but could yes/no them...
| technothrasher wrote:
| I remember watching a bit on TV years ago about the president of
| Iceland flying commercially just like any other passenger. I
| thought at the time there was no way the president of a country
| _really_ flew around like that. Years later I found myself
| sitting behind the president of the Turks and Caicos islands on a
| commercial flight and thought, "huh, I guess I was wrong."
| resolutebat wrote:
| The Prime Minister of Singapore, a country that could _very_
| easily afford a fleet of private jets if they wanted to,
| travels on Singapore Airlines. If you 're a frequent flyer
| based on Singapore, running into extra security because he's on
| board is a not-uncommon occurrence.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Singapore also specifically prides itself on its airline
| being rated one of the best in the world. Though I don't
| think the Emir of Dubai flies Emirates.
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| Emirates should be in Abu Dhabi
| bobthepanda wrote:
| No, Emirates is Dubai and Etihad is Abu Dhabi.
| draculero wrote:
| The current president of Mexico, at the beginning flew
| commercial flights but after a year or two he got tired of the
| sneering and insults (well deserved).
| jcarrano wrote:
| If that happened to me I'd take it as a sign from the heavens and
| I'd keep pushing forwards.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-29 23:00 UTC)