Post

Eva Codes 👩‍💻
@eva.codes

Very informative video! It's likely the fact I'm not a UX designer, but I was initially very confused as to the pushback against "sensible" and I wonder if that's a terminology thing specific to UX design, as it seems from context that people are using it to mean "perfect" or "best"? Whereas I'd /

0 reposts3 likes

Eva Codes 👩‍💻
@eva.codes

think of "sensible" as more "not awful". More specifically I guess two things: "Viable": I want the default layout to be viable for whatever I want to do, even if not optimal. Nothing I need should be eg hidden until I press a shortcut, it should be either visible or clear how I get there.

Eva Codes 👩‍💻
@eva.codes

"Inviting": The software should not be overwhelming or scary. Failure here is kinda the inverse of failure in viability, where too much is immediately visible and I can't form a mental model easily. You could probably think of this in terms of "branching factor" when it comes to menus etc 🤔

Robin-Yann Storm
@rystorm.com

Thank you! And the problem with 'sensible' in this case is that it exactly tries to cover such designs as 'viable' and 'inviting' that you mention. The viability is different for each person. What is inviting is different for each person. So there cannot be a 'Sensible' default.

Robin-Yann Storm
@rystorm.com

What is and isn't 'awful', differs for each person, project, team, and company. So the word 'sensible' sets up a bad paradigm for measurement. Instead, the word 'editable' clearly indicates the need for multiple settings, and multiple different people. It provides room for the design conversation.