TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

UX Crash Course: User Psychology

113 点作者 JoelMarsh将近 11 年前

8 条评论

JonoBB将近 11 年前
I&#x27;m really not quite sure what to make of this advice: <a href="http://thehipperelement.com/post/86991518680/daily-ux-crash-course-user-psychology-27-of-31" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thehipperelement.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;86991518680&#x2F;daily-ux-crash-...</a><p>&gt; If your marketing department wants to know anything about why the user is cancelling, put it in the form. Two pages of boring questions is a great way to reduce conversion.<p>&gt; Break the form into many pages so it takes longer. Include links to FAQ pages. And avoid using defaults; it maximizes the number of conscious choices for the user.<p>&gt; Ask them to explain their reasons for cancelling, and require at least 100 letters of text. Explaining is hard when your reasons are emotional.<p>Really? Obviously I don&#x27;t want to make it too easy for users to cancel, but to make it too hard just seems petty to me. Asking them to fill out the reasons for cancellation is a great idea (and worked really well for us), but forcing them to write at least 100 letters is just horrible.<p>Also, there are some users that you really do want to cancel. You know, the ones that suck up twice as much support as anyone else and complain incessantly.<p>Surely its more important to be focusing on why users are cancelling, not luring them through a maze of &quot;two pages of boring questions&quot;? Does anyone reputable actually do this?<p>There is a sweet spot somewhere in between, but this seems to be irritating and would just make me want to write complete junk responses.
评论 #7833313 未加载
评论 #7834764 未加载
评论 #7833289 未加载
harrybr将近 11 年前
Joel, this work appears to be heavily plagiarised in places. I&#x27;ve only had a quick browse, but it looks like you&#x27;ve cribbed content from UX textbooks and online sources. Some people would consider this unethical, particularly since you have something to sell on your site (your book on &#x27;Persuasion, manipulation &amp; brainwashing.&#x27;).<p>The solution is simple, you need to clearly cite and link to your sources.<p>As well as making the source authors happy, this will be very helpful for readers who want to do further research.
Aardwolf将近 11 年前
My psychology is unfortunately different than most users, which means UI&#x27;s suck for me nowadays.<p>I want <i>more</i> information on screen, more settings, more logic.<p>The UI trend however seems to be <i>less</i> information on screen, less settings, and more &quot;The UI knows better what you want than you do&quot; :(
评论 #7834722 未加载
评论 #7833523 未加载
评论 #7833345 未加载
fat0wl将近 11 年前
I did end up skimming a few more sections to see if it picked up &amp; it was still all hollow, common sense stuff eventually descending into predatory gamification&#x2F;addiction tactics. I know there are a lot of burgeoning startup types on here but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that responsible developers should strive to make a product that serves a real need for users. I want to make software that retains customers through convenience, features, value.<p>This guide reads more like those old guides for how to use SEO to drive traffic to your dung-heap. I don&#x27;t know how others feel but I want to create a good experience for my users, not convince the masses that they are my users so I can go to some freemium lowest-common-denominator model.<p>Is web dev the wrong place for me or are we just in a bubble phase for these people who try to use their &quot;clever interfaces&quot; to regress humans to some animal state? (If you look at the chapter headers in this guide I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;m out of line... its literally about addiction, sex, etc.)
评论 #7834116 未加载
boyander将近 11 年前
As a developer, the only thing that I have to say is: Why are you using a million canvas on your page? Are you trying to do some kind of benchmark? Please improve this.
brianjoseff将近 11 年前
Hey Joel- great stuff. Can you post your sources? For example, in the Cognitive Bias Lesson in the Decoy section, where did you get this factoid: &quot;even though nobody chooses [the decoy], if you remove it, about 60% of people will choose the cheapest option instead.&quot;. Thanks for assembling these lessons!
评论 #7834818 未加载
toddkaufmann将近 11 年前
tl;dr (but I may revisit in the future).<p>I used to think UX meant a wider &quot;systems&quot; approach to the man-machine interface, incorporating findings from CHI, cognitive science, user studies, etc.<p>Now it seems like it is becoming a name for the design of marketing your product in the experience economy, not helping perform a task more efficiently (unless the &quot;task&quot; is selling to the user).<p>I&#x27;d like to see some discriminating term separating this from the UI-to-the-machine (UIttM ?) where streamlined presentation of the right info just-in-time is important, versus the &quot;create more clicks for A&#x2F;B testing&quot; sales growth-hacking &#x2F; I can make a web page with fonts.<p>I dunno, maybe this is a false dichotomy and reflects some kind of design thinking that UX is a term to apply to everything. Did a UX person design the pattern on my toilet paper?
评论 #7835904 未加载
usablebytes将近 11 年前
Thanks. It&#x27;s a good quick run-through with the fundamentals and lives up to the title. I wish there would be simple and short illustrative examples&#x2F;case-studies - or links to it - in the lessons to prove each point.