| ▲ | bob1029 5 hours ago | |||||||||||||
It was definitely more of a stick than carrot situation. The issue with multiple dialogs is that the operator could claim that they were confused with conflicting wording and the implications of things like "Confirm" vs "Cancel" in certain contexts of use. This provides some degree of cover for moving with less care. With no dialog at all, the operator has nothing to point to but their own actions. There is nothing to hide behind. The fact that this was also a heavily multi-lingual/cultural environment amplified the effect of poorly designed safety mechanisms dramatically. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Esophagus4 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Really interesting, thanks. Kind of reminds me of parallels to not wearing a seatbelt making someone drive with more care. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kyralis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
Confirm/Cancel (like Yes/No) for dialog buttons has been known to be confusing and detrimental for decades now. The button names should always describe action to be taken, not a response to the text above. My point is that the operator may be genuinely confused by a poor interaction model. Removing that interaction model entirely is certainly an option, but it's not clear that comparing "no dialog" vs "bad dialog" is a strong argument for "dialogs bad, better to have none" - you don't have data for the "good dialog" case, which may be better still. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||