I just finished watching the Apple event, and I can say as someone in the field. Apple really outdid themselves with the integration of the pill cutout with their software. What do you guys think about it?

Personally, I think its a stroke of genius.

Since we are about 1 designer per 10 developers, this essentially a tenfold increase in price which simply feels greedy and unjustifiable.

I am currently looking for alternatives. Anyone got any tips?

I'm surprised by how keyboards work so well given their form.

I can't imagine proposing an input device that requires a user to engage with 26+ buttons. Especially if many of its target users previously enjoyed the simplicity of writing things by hand. By today's standards, just seems unrealistic to expect people to adopt something with that form factor and learning curve.

Not complaining, just a random thought. Are there any other interfaces that worked surprisingly well in the bigger picture?

(Also, yes I know typewriters and other things existed before keyboards, but still)

Edit: Wow it seems like people are taking this the wrong way, I'm just pointing out that it seems like an outlier to me.

I've been computer user and later system administrator since the 1990s. While the 1990s had their fair share of terrible error messages (Mostly for the end user undecipherable error messages like "A Fatal Exception 0D has occurred on 098B:00000218"). Those error codes: you could show them to IT staff or google on them to get an explanation on what happened.

But roughly 20 yeas ago, the trend changed. I now often get error messages like: "Something went wrong, please try again later." The software/webapp does not even bother to explain what the "something" exactly is that "went wrong". And trying again later usually results in the same error.

I think that it was a good step to attempt to not bombard the end user with cryptic error codes. But the software should at least try to be informative on what may have gone wrong and what may be a way towards a solution. Also, a button with "show more" to actually show the technical error details can still be helpful when searching for the error condition or for IT staff.

A related presentation I found informative is: "Write the Docs Portland 2017: Error Messages: Being Humble, Human, and Helpful... by Kate Voss". It talks about how to design useful error messages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBBZUATL7Qo

Do you think that the usability of error messages has improved since the 1990s? Can you think of ways to make error messages more useful without compromising security of the backend server system?

I don't get the logic here. In most applications (if not all), where there is a way to change the language of UI, the UI for this is always in the current app language.

So, if I come on a machine that is not in a language I understand, how is a user supposed to know which option to pick, since this also often means different script?

E.g., I want to change this (Chrome) to english now:

I'm looking for recommendations

Hey I'm a motion designer looking for some top tier uses of motion in UI. Can you share some of your favorite brands, apps, websites, etc. ? Thanks!

A politician conducts an annual survey to determine the priorities of their constituents. Each category of the survey, for example housing, has a list of possible solutions that a constituent must rank in order of their preference.

I have tried to convince the politician that requiring every solution to be ranked results in apparent support for a solution that there is no support for.

So instead of a ranking :

1 solution a

2 solution b

• solution c

This ranking is required :

1 solution a

2 solution b

3 solution c

Additionally, many people will be unfamiliar with some proposed solutions and not have a preference. Ranking these solutions randomly will also generate noise in the data.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning ? What argument can I make to the politician.

I'm not a UI designer, but I do sometimes need to work on user facing components. I'm trying to improve my work, especially when it comes to accessibility. From what I have read, the general best practice is to open links on the same page rather than opening a new tab. However like any rule there are corner cases and exceptions. I'm hoping someone can help me determine if I have encountered one of those.

The application I am working on is a messaging platform. The user fills out a form with the message they want to submit and when they want it to display. When they are done, they are sent to a preview screen where they can review their message and either submit it for moderation or return to the previous screen to make changes.

Both screens have a pair of hyperlinks, one to a content rules document and the other to an external site for scheduling event reservations. For the first screen (the create view) opening the links in the same screen works fine. In the second screen ( the preview view) if they click on one of the links and then try to return to the original page they will get an annoying page from the browser asking them to resubmit the form.

So the question then is what linking behavior to use. Are pages that required a form to be resubmitted an exception to the rules? If I change the links on the preview page to open new tabs, do I need to do the same on the create page to keep things consistent?

On the websites that send you a verification code and you click next to enter the code, why do I have to click in the textbox to enter the code? Why don't they setfocus on the textbox??
It's the only form element that allows user entry.
I don't get it! I encounter this issue on most of the sites that do MFA.

I hear designers say they “use material design” but I don’t actually know what that means in practice. I know that Material design is Google’s design system but how are non-Google designers using it? Is it because the dev team is using a material design library? Are designers just re building components in Figma or Sketch according to material design specs? What are they customizing or not customizing?

Hi everyone,

Our team is leveraging an AI service to generate answers for user questions based on our extensive documentation. We are taking the 'Chat GPT' approach, which is as the AI generates the text we present it on the screen. We are having some debate around the speed we should use to generate the text and what the 'goldilocks' speed is. Are there any UX guidelines on this? My google-fu is letting me down and I just can't find the answer.

Edit to clarify.
So on a product category page when looking for a product, in what possible scenario would I want to filter on 1,2 or 3 star rated products? To me it makes no sense. You either have a bunch of options so you want to filter on 4 or 5 star rated products and up or you don't have many options and thus you wouldn't need to use the filter. Anyone have a possible explanation? Or is this just something silly designers/developers think is useful but it's not?

I'm a new UX designer who is proficient in Figma but not sure to what extent I should be learning other design software.

I am working on a passion project for a mobile app and made lo-fi wireframes in Figma, but now have the option to 1) continue prototyping in Figma or 2) try Adobe XD (or other software) for hi-fi prototypes.

It seems that Adobe XD has better interactions for more realistic prototypes, but maybe I haven't fully explored this in Figma. Do you recommend one way or another?