Yes. Humans are currently much better at recognizing subtle danger signs and planning accordingly.
As one example, let’s say you have a right turn a few hundred yards ahead of you. There are no cars behind or beside you, but there is a long row of parallel parked cars next to the right lane.
An average human driver, anticipating the danger of a car door opening, will stay in the left lane until the last minute, or at least slow down considerably. A current self-driving car will likely stay in the right lane and proceed at the speed limit.
Checking to see if something scrolls is way easier than looking at a design, calculating in your head if the margins look equidistant from one another thus deducing that it must be the bottom of the screen.
I always thought 'below the fold' was so overused or at least only for people who never use a computer, but I guess that's definitely wrong.
> Checking to see if something scrolls is way easier than looking at a design, calculating in your head if the margins look equidistant from one another thus deducing that it must be the bottom of the screen.
I disagree, because you're not calculating anything. You just see the existence of a scrollbar and know immediately that the content exceeds the viewport and you can scroll. That's it. It's at least an order of magnitude faster than the alternative of "checking" because it happens instinctively without the slightest motor movement.
"Checking to see if something scrolls" means some form of finger or hand movement.
I know what you're saying though, because I do see people do it all the time. There is an awkward, to me, pattern of "I just started reading, so let's shake the content up and down to get oriented." It's just as foreign to me as people who highlight text as they're reading. Not my thing, but whatever. (On the highlighting behavior, I always figured it's both a visual cue and at least partially a matter of highlighted text becoming light-on-blue, which is easier to read than most web pages' black-on-white.)
> I always thought 'below the fold' was so overused or at least only for people who never use a computer, but I guess that's definitely wrong.
That advice was commonly head in web design and it wasn't really about people not knowing whether they can scroll or not. But rather, that visitors might just decide not to scroll before they leave your content because the first page is so uninteresting to them. It's because scrolling requires interaction that you're motivated to make the "above the fold" content grab their attention.
A behavior of "let's see if this scrolls by actually scrolling" is, in my opinion, an anti-pattern of bad UX.
I don't know if this is still done in grade schools or not, but long ago when I was in grade school, teachers would pass out strips of paper for reading - and as a bookmark. The idea that the student would hold it under the sentence in the paragraph they were reading so that they didn't get lost or lose their place.
I had been reading since before I started school; it was something I picked up early and that my parents encouraged in me greatly. So by the time I was in school and we were doing these reading exercises (which were mostly utterly boring to me at the time, because my favorite thing to read at home were my various science encyclopedia sets), I had no need for such a placeholder. Reading was natural to me, and I knew where I was in a paragraph, etc.
Of course, this upset the teachers, until they finally figured out that yes, I could read, and not only that, I could read well above my grade level (that said, my comprehension wasn't as great, unless it was geared toward topics of science).
I always figured that people who highlight text as they read on a screen do so for similar reasons; not that it's a stupid thing or anything - sometimes with long lines, small fonts, bad color/contrast choices, etc in text on a screen, you do need some kind of a marker to help you along...
I frequently highlight text while reading because the lines are too long and I end up loosing where I am when looking for the next line.
This is usually only a problem on desktop.
Are you actually checking every paragraph, section, list, etc? There may be additional content with overflow-y…
(This is a real-world issue: In a write-up, you may want to present detailed data, but don't want to have every user, interested in the details or not, to scroll over several pages of extensive data. So the logical choice is to present a small, illustrative sample and have more in the overflow. The same technique may be used – and has been historically extensively used by the Engelbart community – for outlined text content.)
> Checking to see if something scrolls is way easier than looking at a design, calculating in your head if the margins look equidistant from one another thus deducing that it must be the bottom of the screen.
This is the typical narrow minded view that these app designers (not you) have. There are other uses for the scroll bar. For instance, I used to be able to tell how long it would take to read an article by looking at the scroll bar. Now they are gone and to compensate every other article now as an indication of reading time. Which is of course a worse solution, because people's reading speeds differ and it also clutters screen estate, even is a more annoying way.
The well known xkcd[0] about breaking workflows does not only apply to features, but also to UI. Few designers seem to acknowledge that.
probably analysis of the carbon emissions that beef and beef externalities produce compared to the average emission of a typical car and then aggregate that into a single comparison to highlight just how much beef and beef production emits to the environment.
It's mostly because they want to use their jokes for a special down the road, but if someone records them during a smaller venue with the same jokes, it'll ruin the special.
Not to mention it could be a bit they're still working on and fleshing out, so not only will it be out there already but it will be a potentially subpar version of the bit.
That's around 220 matches a year since shes had the app, so like 18 matches per month for four years...
She matched with a new guy every two days basically, and he mentioned she only sent 1700 messages since she started. That's almost two average messages per match before getting bored and moving on.
With that much abundance of choice, I guess you could say life is nice and easy for the author.
Well, you could say that, but is it true? Perhaps the post-match experience isn't necessarily very good, and anyway I'm not sure raw quantity maximizes anything normal people care about.
The going stereotype about Tinder is that most men (all but the most attractive) match poorly while most women (all but the least attractive) match well - but that (again, most) women nonetheless experience a lack of communication post-match.
Women have more matches, but a worse experience. Men have less matches, but the matches they get are better.
Which is better, getting 1,000 matches in a day, when 999 of them are people who just swiped right no matter what, or who are downright rude, aggressive or poor communicators?
Or getting 2 meaningful matches in a day from people who actually want to meet you and might be a good fit for a relationship or friendship?
The first is just a bunch of noise with no signal. The second is preferable.
And plus, I'm a guy and I would easily get 3 or 4 matches a day when I was on Tinder. It's not like men are completely ignored on it. I'm hardly a supermodel, but nice pictures and a well-written profile can go a long way on online dating. Plus living in a high-population city.
I've never used online dating and, barring some kind of calamity, won't ever be dating again, so I'm working only with second-hand experience. But what you say makes some sense for sure.
Well that makes sense since you hear about men just indiscriminately saying yes to everyone. And you also have to imagine that some of the comments are just obscene catcalls rather than attempts at conversation.
> Twenty years ago, if you had asked people: "If you had a service that data mined the information you gave it for advertising purposes, where potentially dozens of engineers and operators have access to that information--would you consider that a trusted and private system?" They would have said "no."
With the upside that every product is free and said service have never used such information malevolently? That's a resounding 'yes'.
