Pratyush Posted November 19, 2020 Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 On 5/14/2020 at 10:09 AM, Kashish said: @patanne Thanks for your inputs. We'll be working on this to close the app with the cross(X) button in the Windows platform. @Kashish - Please do not change the current behavior and kill the enpass app on clicking the cross(x) button. The app needs to by running even when the users accidently clicks the X button. Changing this to the default behavior will destroy the experience of the entire enpass platform and make it too hard to use and you will loose a lot of customers. What you have is the way it should work as the users want it ... not the way Microsoft intended it in 1995 as @patanne mentioned in his earlier posts. We should not promote an outdated and bad UX forward. I dont think there was enough research and maturity in 1995 on how the windows and applications should work. People needed to close the apps because the ram was a few mb in 1995 .. not anymore.. the close button does not make any sense in 2020. The system must match the user's mental model and what makes sense, not the way an old system made a judgement call without leaving any room for improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patanne Posted November 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 @Kashish Having the X close the program is not the outdated way. It is the correct way to have a UI. A good UI has one button for one and only one thing. X exits the application as is has forever. That the X button's behavior has been coopted to the pleasure of people like you does not change that it is bad UI design. For those who want the improper behavior I suggested a "minimize to system tray" checkbox as most programs (like task manager) do whose authors feel there is such value. But make no mistake about it, you want the program to stay running when it goes out of sight, which is a special case of minimize. X is to quit, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patanne Posted November 19, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 @Pratyush I would suggest leaving the X for its intended purpose, since the beginning of UI design, to quit the program. Why not make a special request for the behavior you want, which is not what X was designed for? This way all the confusion created by people who support the wrong use of X will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pratyush Posted November 19, 2020 Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 Having a setting to minimize instead of close will be a good bipartisan solution ☺️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Trense Posted November 19, 2020 Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 5 hours ago, Pratyush said: @Kashish - Please do not change the current behavior and kill the enpass app on clicking the cross(x) button. The app needs to by running even when the users accidently clicks the X button. Changing this to the default behavior will destroy the experience of the entire enpass platform and make it too hard to use and you will loose a lot of customers. What you have is the way it should work as the users want it ... not the way Microsoft intended it in 1995 as @patanne mentioned in his earlier posts. We should not promote an outdated and bad UX forward. I dont think there was enough research and maturity in 1995 on how the windows and applications should work. People needed to close the apps because the ram was a few mb in 1995 .. not anymore.. the close button does not make any sense in 2020. The system must match the user's mental model and what makes sense, not the way an old system made a judgement call without leaving any room for improvement. @Pratyush „will destroy the experience of the entire enpass platform and make it too hard to use and you will loose a lot of customers“ Actually, having the option to change the behavior to the one that each user individually wants is called customizing. Which is something desirable as it improves the experience and this makes the app easier to use. After all: who are we as developers to decide what the user has to want? And btw. I seriously doubt that another option in the settings to change some default behavior will make somebody not want to use an app. „is the way it should work as the users want it ... not the way Microsoft intended it in 1995“ That is a bold claim as I would have expected you to provide evidence that most of the users really want that behavior. Whereas I am pretty sure that Microsoft did that research in before pushing a standard to thousands of customers. And even if the majority of users do not expect the same things as in 1995 anymore: still holds customizability. A user always knows what he/she wants better than any developer could possibly foresee. That’s why we have settings after all. „I dont think there was enough research and maturity in 1995 on how the windows and applications should work“ again. What a claim, given a companies huge revenue was severely influenced by that decision. But let’s say that indeed MS did the wrong decision here. Than upholds compatibility. Having nearly EVERY app in the ecosystem behave one way, the user gets used to it (even if they don’t like it) and by so they expect the entire ecosystem to behave the usual way. Doing not so at least needs a user visible explanation and an option to return to STANDARD if at all possible. Because even if the standard is not absolutely perfect in any circumstances, it is a standard. Common ground so to speak. And adhering to it makes the world work better together. And ultimately: compatibility. And if one doesn’t like it: customizability. „People needed to close the apps because the ram was a few mb in 1995 .. not anymore.. the close button does not make any sense in 2020.“ Not so fast. Maybe back then that actually was the reason. Nonetheless it is not the only one. Me for example just REALLY do not like having many windows open. Despite the fact that my machine has plenty of RAM to do so. And secondly a close button makes indeed sense for me as it accelerates my workflow when needing passwords rarely but wandering off my desktop regularly. Because of that, I want the app to completely shut down and lock to not have any coworker passing by and potentially mess with my passwords while I take a coffee. (Yes I know that you may not like that workflow and are sure that clearly there would be a better one. But again: you cannot force people act anything different than before your app/hints/anything. So sticking to „Our way is clearly better. Go change your expectations“ is just not helpful.) „The system must match the user's mental model and what makes sense, not the way an old system made a judgement call without leaving any room for improvement.“ Ahh now we are getting close. So now imagine Enpass as this old System. The user now wants to improve their workflow and is hindered by your judgement call about „our way is the best. No need to adjust it in real life, because we know what’s best for you without being in your situation“. See? Yes the system must match the users expectations. And BECAUSE of that (and because each human and each use case is different) any system needs to be adjustable. Concluding. The only right thing to do is include a settings option to let the user decide. You may stick to the current behavior as the default if you feel like that is best. But please do not try to be more clever than your customers. After all: that could truly be a reason why they may leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pratyush Posted November 19, 2020 Report Share Posted November 19, 2020 @Tim Trense - thank you for the long explanation on statistical thinking, but statistic is only created with age and population. I had already agreed to a setting solution here and you could have saved a lot of time instead of explaining something that was not required at all. I am just here to debate against the title of this discussion which wants to remove the minimizing into system tray all together just to be technically accurate, and the developer agreed to it so I wanted to point out the other side as well. After all, I am only trying to match the interaction to the mental model of the generic user and not someone who has an in-depth knowledge of SDI and MDI and IBM CUA of 1987. The user is not me! it is everyone else. I don't need to be academically accurate. I just need to provide joy to my users! I hope you understand that most of the interaction patterns that were developed in 90s were engineering driven and were optimized to run on the hardware limitation of that time hence closing application was utmost important then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now