Good UX should make things easier without just copying what everyone else is doing. Nostr is a chance to try something new. ⚡

Nostr is a chance to build something different instead of copying the same old platforms. ⚡🧡

> I dislike what some people commonly refer to as "UX", which is just pure status quo bias and survivorship bias. The "its different so i hate it" effect is very real. To an extent as designs are their own kind of grammar and language, as programming languages are, humans tend to adopt languages by cultural force more than anything. Its like the ribbon. People who were trained fresh on Office prototypes liked it, people who had ten years of experience with Word 98 hated it. Ribbons have some goof to them (they need to be customizable like toolbars used to be, and the layout of the buttons can get a little ridiculous), but one of the more famous examples of the whole "its different so i hate it" problem. > Of course, Nostr also has other constraints, which are basically that the user has to be aware of keys and relays in some way or another, but because people are so deep into their status quo bias they refuse to see this as an interesting challenge and an opportunity for general enlightement, they prefer to try to hide it from themselves and from others, I don't think common users are interested. They don't want interesting technical challenges. They want to push a button and receive bacon. Which is what Discord et all ultimately give them. It's been known for a while that even having to just download a client is already a massive barrier. On the Mumble and XMPP side we have that fight a lot; there's certain complexities guaranteed by "you have your own server" that "just trust the monolith" doesn't have, and normies overwhelmingly side with the monolith. For technical people puzzles can be interesting. Most people who aren't writing the software aren't interested and just want the phone to work. The first part I can care about. Sometimes change is better or at least no worse. In many ways I want to *regress* UX, as the 90s style UIs had a lot more love and care behind them. Easily picked out borders, high accessibility color, customizable toolbars and sometimes automation aimed at "power users" (not just thrown a javascript kernel and told gg.) Who remembers when you could actually set what sound played when you received a message? The second part, well, Steam and Netflix are huge testaments to how much "make the fee small and give a website with 2-3 clicks to receive bacon" are what people overwhelmingly select. Popcorn Time did something similar until getting nuked. It would be fairly ridiculous if one went to a hospital and the doctors told you that you should just pick up some study of medicine as a fun puzzle when asking for a consultation.

UX = Art All art is derivative, of course. But its very easy for people to tell when a piece of art is derivative because the creator went "that's a good idea, I like it" vs "that idea seems to work, I'll use it because it soothes my fear of failure or risk-aversion" vs "I'll just use that because I don't care" A lot of things are the latter two. The former one rarely makes "bad" art (and thus, rarely bad UX). It could be niche or convoluted, but it will have charm and any negatives won't be suspicion of inauthenticity on the part of the creator. #aubreykunyap

I suppose that's one way at looking at it, I kind of look at it as "customer service" in a way. What is it that users need, which tends to be cumbersome and what can we do to make satisfactory to most?

Oh hey Quinn, fancy seeing you here. I agree with your thoughts on this. Or at least with normies, keeping it simple as possible.

I'm trying it out for a bit. Not nearly enough blobmojis though. Will probably test out the git support next since forgejo federation is a meme and codeberg is codeberging.

What client are you using? There's blobfox from what I see but I can probably import all the OG blobs here

There's a truism in design that goes something like "a user interface is primarily made for how its developers use it." In order to decide "most" you have to implicitly figure out who you are excluding. It's impossible to make something usable or understandable by "all". So, as with art, you have to know your audience. In most cases a dev is going to have the most success making things they would use themselves, for people who are of similar mind, or for whom the dev has genuine care for. Making something that one does not personally believe in it often seen as a cashgrab, phoned-in, corporatized, trend-following, selling out, slop, etc. This is easiest to see with accessibility features and whether it's a checkbox for funding or if the developer(s) actually care about people with disabilities using their stuff. But beyond that, really UX is part of design, and design is a type of art - not split from it. #aubreykunyap

El estatus quo no es ciencia. La dieta carnívora reduce marcadores inflamatorios como la PCR en 7 días. La UX real es diseñar para la salud, no para la adicción a la insulina.

there is evidence in psychology that social proof tends to persuade people to adopt a new idea or invention. Just because millions of people say they like it, it does not mean "like" = "the best UX". However, it does not mean there is nothing to learn from the popular social media's UX design. There are early adopters and there are reason why they are an avid fan. The same goes for #nostr. There are early adopters here who have been telling devs for many years how to improve the UX of nostr clients. Some have been implemented but some are still outstanding. Perhaps that is worth looking into.