I recently had to setup a few mailchimp campaigns for a client and so found myself using the new UI quite a lot. Their new design has quite a lot of UI bugs and things that make no sense. Its all fixable with feedback, but it would've been nice if they'd beta tested this design first. It feels rushed.
Yep, although it's still 10 times better than their old interface.
It's been a couple of months now I think (?) since the redesign and if they had been proactive about it, most of these should have been fixed already. It makes me believe that they're not using usability testing, which makes no sense for a company their size. Or maybe they do, and that really is the unintuitive outcome their tests have shown to be the least confusing to users. Would be hard to believe, though...
They may not look like traditional buttons, but if something has a verb-an-object phrase like "Create a list" as a caption, I damn well expect it to do what the caption says when clicked.
I'm a new user of MC after the redesign and I think they really made sense. They are not actionable buttons, but "instruction buttons". They help the beginners to understand the UI and know where are the things they're going to use often. I remember have used once the old UI and it wasn't as clear as this and normal people don't mind clicking.
Such 'instruction buttons' and other notices/signs sprinkled through the UI can be an indicator of bad design, an insufficient consideration of 'affordances'[1].
Which is to say, a good user interface (and not just software, but anyplace human/device interaction occurs) should probably be as intuitive/discoverable as possible, featuring behaviours which can be inferred/suspected from an element's inherent properties (e.g.: in an aircraft cockpit, make the "flaps" switch resemble a flap), from the user's general experience in other contexts (an on-screen control that looks like a "button" should act like a "button"), or which preclude incorrect actions entirely (on a door which only swings open in one direction, install a flat plate on the "push" side and a pullable handle on the "pull" side, so the incorrect choice becomes impossible, and no signs are even needed). Putting actual instructional labels onto interface elements, whether in software (e.g. using words "Click here to..." in the text of a hyperlink) or in real life with the push/pull signs, is oftentimes a cop-out in lieu of a more thoughtful/obvious design.
In computer software interfaces (particularly web apps), I would suggest that a large, prominent, colored circle with a gloss effect and an action written/iconized on it, has the affordance of carrying out that action immediately when clicked (for some value of "immediately") -- i.e. being a button.
If substantial UI changes have taken place within an app that already has a customer base, I agree it may be valuable to bring these to the attention of the users. But a highlighted notification box appearing at the top of the app's regular UI screens, which persists until the user reads and dismisses it, is widely used -- rather than sprinkling "push" and "pull" signs around a wrongly-conceived interface[2].
Even the venerable "tool-tip" (aka HTML "title" attribute) seems often overused, becoming a crutch to support a mystery-meat navigation[3] philosophy which requires users to hover and wait to figure out what the hell _anything_ does.
[n] The examples about cockpit design and push/pull doors come from actual published studies in ergonomics. I do not have the resources available at the moment to cite them further.
But there's no such thing as instruction buttons. It's not like software is a physical thing where you can't easily change where buttons point to. What makes more sense to your mom: that the huge button labeled "Create a new list" teleports the user to the "Create a new list"-page, or that it shows the user where to actually click to start the confusing road towards the "Create a new list"-page?
You say normal people don't mind clicking. I say you don't have much experience with normal people. Any time you add an extra step in your funnel, you'll have a higher drop rate.
I get the instructional intent -- give a person a fishing net, not fish. But it's a huge amount of real estate. Even Clippy didn't demand this much space.
The images themselves appear to be iconography, not control elements. Unless there were some specific affordance (say, tooltips, a feature which is missing from FAR too many interfaces), I wouldn't think to actually click on the images. The links below them, yes.
The whole greyed-out control cluster on the left side -- I'd probably ignore almost completely. Grey-on-grey does not suggest importance.
MailChimp's UX has always been quite miserable. The new redesign is better in some ways, worse in others. I'm pretty convinced that it leads because it has the best freemium plan.
I find the Mailchimp UI very confusing. I always forget where to get my API key for example. So many important items seem to be hidden in hidden menus and submenus.
This is UI, as a user there's no right or wrong. The designer should accommodate you clicking on the "Show Me" link. I guess that way this works how you would expect it.
[+] [-] vinhboy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TamDenholm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] relix|12 years ago|reply
It's been a couple of months now I think (?) since the redesign and if they had been proactive about it, most of these should have been fixed already. It makes me believe that they're not using usability testing, which makes no sense for a company their size. Or maybe they do, and that really is the unintuitive outcome their tests have shown to be the least confusing to users. Would be hard to believe, though...
[+] [-] ricardobeat|12 years ago|reply
At first I thought he was talking about the 'Drafts' and 'Create campaign' buttons on the top right.
[+] [-] Sharlin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nadaviv|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earlyriser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamestnz|12 years ago|reply
Which is to say, a good user interface (and not just software, but anyplace human/device interaction occurs) should probably be as intuitive/discoverable as possible, featuring behaviours which can be inferred/suspected from an element's inherent properties (e.g.: in an aircraft cockpit, make the "flaps" switch resemble a flap), from the user's general experience in other contexts (an on-screen control that looks like a "button" should act like a "button"), or which preclude incorrect actions entirely (on a door which only swings open in one direction, install a flat plate on the "push" side and a pullable handle on the "pull" side, so the incorrect choice becomes impossible, and no signs are even needed). Putting actual instructional labels onto interface elements, whether in software (e.g. using words "Click here to..." in the text of a hyperlink) or in real life with the push/pull signs, is oftentimes a cop-out in lieu of a more thoughtful/obvious design.
In computer software interfaces (particularly web apps), I would suggest that a large, prominent, colored circle with a gloss effect and an action written/iconized on it, has the affordance of carrying out that action immediately when clicked (for some value of "immediately") -- i.e. being a button.
If substantial UI changes have taken place within an app that already has a customer base, I agree it may be valuable to bring these to the attention of the users. But a highlighted notification box appearing at the top of the app's regular UI screens, which persists until the user reads and dismisses it, is widely used -- rather than sprinkling "push" and "pull" signs around a wrongly-conceived interface[2].
Even the venerable "tool-tip" (aka HTML "title" attribute) seems often overused, becoming a crutch to support a mystery-meat navigation[3] philosophy which requires users to hover and wait to figure out what the hell _anything_ does.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
[2] I'm not suggesting that the MC UI itself is wrongly-conceived or even particularly bad, just continuing with my general point.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_meat_navigation
[n] The examples about cockpit design and push/pull doors come from actual published studies in ergonomics. I do not have the resources available at the moment to cite them further.
[+] [-] relix|12 years ago|reply
You say normal people don't mind clicking. I say you don't have much experience with normal people. Any time you add an extra step in your funnel, you'll have a higher drop rate.
[+] [-] 6cxs2hd6|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] movingahead|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|12 years ago|reply
The whole greyed-out control cluster on the left side -- I'd probably ignore almost completely. Grey-on-grey does not suggest importance.
http://www.contrastrebellion.com/
[+] [-] pbreit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mailarchis|12 years ago|reply
the new ui has no modal popups. Its either a new page or the ui element slides from up , down or sides. It makes an interesting redesign.
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] relix|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darmen|12 years ago|reply