(09-23-2017, 09:04 AM)chutten Wrote:(09-22-2017, 08:30 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I don’t need to know the design intent to know that it does not take into account obvious needs of people using the area.
This reminds me of a similar situation with our student registration system at the University of Waterloo. I once commented unfavourably on the way the menu structure worked for students, which involved multiple levels of single-choice menus. Somebody said that basically it had to be that way because some users have more options in those menus. Uh, nope, the interface for students is inconvenient and doesn’t make sense; it doesn’t matter why or if the same interface works fine for certain staff members.
Happy to hear that ol' chestnut is still making the rounds about JobMine.
But you're right: even without knowing the design, the confusion it generates is evidence enough. Maybe it's a new road feature that will only generate confusion until people get used to it (see: roundabouts), but if so it needs to be signed like one and have its different portions given appropriate affordance to suggest their uses.
Actually I’m talking about Quest, although I haven’t heard much good about JobMine.
Quest also has a tendency to force everybody to “search” for things, even when only a small number (often <5) choices actually make sense for that person. The right way is just to list the applicable choices and let the person choose, for people in that situation, and leave the search function for people who might possibly actually need to look up a wide variety of items. But the fundamental general problem, as far as I can tell, is that the right way involves actually thinking about what the end user needs, not coming up with some technical excuse why a reasonable interface is impossible.
Just to be clear, I have implemented a few WTFs in my time, but in most cases I know I have done so, I tend to agree with people when they mention something is confusing, and sometimes I go back and improve things when I have the time.