"Latest" vs. "Newest" vs. "Top"

csf

Regarding discussion lists sorting... Latest, Newest, and Top seem a little redundant in meaning, especially the first two. I'm not able to figure the difference just by trying them. Can someone explain them, or point me to an existing explanation?

HavocK

csf Actually it's quite simple.

Lastest : Sort posts by activity on them (creation, reply, etc)
Newest : Sort posts by creation date (it ignores activities)
Top : Sort post by number of replies

VIRUXE

I will jump onboad on this one. The options are a bit unclear and I too had a hard time knowing the difference between them until I've read HavocK's post

csf

Thanks.

In that case, I would propose to the devs (for the sake of UX) to put a "Sort by:" label on the field, then change the menu options to:

Latest activity
Reply count
Newest posts
Oldest posts

antonjw

Personally speaking, I would say the current design of employing the up/down arrow symbol is better UX than a 'Sort By:' label. If you had a text label for every button, you would have a cluttered and clumsy User Interface reminiscent of the 1990s.

By which I mean, you would be building phpBB... ?

The existing button is more minimal yet I think still communicates that the button controls the sort order.

jordanjay29

antonjw The existing button is more minimal yet I think still communicates that the button controls the sort order.

*takes off mod hat*

Yep, antonjw hits it on the nose. There's no need for a label when so many people are familiar with software sorting options that they recognize it almost immediately.

As for the actual names, I think the aim was also to be minimal in the text. Latest (Posts), Newest (Discussions) and Top (Replies) was a way of shortening common verbiage to communicate the idea. It shares a lot of commonalities with reddit, so those familiar with that software will be comfortable here. I will say that Newest could be replaced by Popular, but that may open a whole new can of worms (how do you define popular?).

Some of these things are just aesthetics preferences that you should feel welcome to change on your own sites, and offer the same to others by way of an extension.

*puts mod hat back on and wanders to the next discussion*

Franz

I agree that apparently we need to talk about the wording here again. ?

antonjw symbol is better UX than a 'Sort By:' label.

jordanjay29 There's no need for a label when so many people are familiar with software sorting options that they recognize it almost immediately.

antonjw remove the drop-drown and the language, and replace with a small set of icons sat next to each other.

These are dangerous statements, folks. ?

I'm a big fan of Jacob Nielsen (a true usability expert), so here are three (nuanced) articles on this topic:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/icon-usability/ (the downsides)
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/classifying-icons/ (some benefits)
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/icon-testing/ (testing usability)

In short, don't overestimate how easy it is to recognize what icons mean. I know they look pretty, but they can detract from usability.

Especially given that there's a lot of room at the top of the discussion list... we don't need to be clever for space's sake.

csf

That's fine, but the menu options are still unclear as written. They would be more clear and specific as two words. A small change with a large affordance.

csf

Sorry, mods, this probably should have been in "Feedback" or "Design" tag? Not sure why I put it in meta.

antonjw

VIRUXE jordanjay29 I actually think that you could remove the drop-drown and the language, and replace with a small set of icons sat next to each other.

This would be a more minimal evolution, and in keeping with modern design approaches in that it would remove the use of language where it isn't really needed, and where (due to differing interpretations), it arguably doesn't offer anything.

I was going to wait to post that until I came up with some icon suggestions, but what the heck.

VIRUXE

I am quite certain we could actually edit the language files to set the text to our liking.

jordanjay29

antonjw Font Awesome probably has some decent icons (it's what Flarum uses all over).

I like the idea, too.

Dominion

Just thought I'd mention this additional reading on the topic:

https://discuss.flarum.org/d/334-sorting-topics

The question keeps coming up, doesn't it? I do think this control could be more intuitive.

antonjw

i've figured out which icons i'd suggest for this from font awesome. will see about doing a quick mock-up. and will then see if i can figure out the editor command for displaying images... ?

antonjw

Franz I agree Franz - I have read a bit of Nielsen over the years, and will look at those articles.

I think it perhaps depends on how strong the site's 'Design Language' is.

Some of which comes down to consistency, which I think when you employ a critical eye on the icons used in Flarum, there is room for improvements here in any case.

So it might be a useful exercise, whatever the outcome.

csf

Franz apparently we need to talk about the wording here again.

Thank goodness there's one sensible voice here with a wrench.

No offense, people. I know everyone's excited about Flarum and loves being active contributors. I'm not here to step on toes, and I'm waaaaaaaay too busy with other things to come in here and start debates about default UI changes that you might think are trivial. (Trust me, they're not.) As long as I can safely make changes to the UI myself (without having to make the same changes with each system update), then I don't really care.

But I'm not a UI design noob. I'm not even young. ?
I've got years of experience (and education) in usability and UCD and you'd be surprised what actual users find intuitive versus what you think is intuitive based on some other platform you like to use. (Please don't compare Flarum with Reddit, or any other system you think is representative of global use. No system is. Every system will have its unique users and you need to test them and take them to heart or else you're just guessing.)

I'll repeat what I said earlier, but switch words and use emphasis: The menu options would be more specific and clear if two words (one a modifier clarifying the other) were used. A small change with a large affordance.

This apparent obsession I see here with reducing everything to the utmost minimum is unwarranted. That's clearly putting design before usability, and that's a mistake. My advice to developers is to launch with what is clear before what is minimal, because minimal is easy to get wrong without user testing. You can always adjust from there.

Franz

antonjw I think it depends on how strong the site's 'Design Language' is, probably (some of which comes down to consistency, which I think there is some room for improvement on, in fact).

Please post your thoughts somewhere (maybe not in this thread, or the moderators will hunt us both down, haha) when you have the time, we're keen to hear them. ?