> The interface design has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, as the large black "Accept" button is prominently displayed while the opt-out toggle appears in smaller text beneath. The toggle defaults to "On," meaning users who quickly click "Accept" without reading the details will automatically consent to data training.
Good points. I think clue 3 is weird because what is a "pay one"? You can't take a "pay one", but I get how to read it now---it's like an anaphor for the word. But yes, for consistency a blank space would have worked: [taking a pay ____ is a bummer]
I think my confusion with clue 2 was that I had never heard of the idiom "[to] fish or cut bait" [1]
- Without the tutorial, it's confusing that you're not supposed to click and you're supposed to start typing. I wonder if placing the text box at the top would make that more clear.
- Some of the clues are confusing due to inconsistent punctuation. For example:
[to ___fish, to lure someone in using a fake internet persona] = cat
[do this or cut bait] = fish
[taking a pay one is a bummer] = cut
[rocks when added to soda will NOT cause your stomach to explode] = pop
The first line uses a comma, the second line uses "or", the third and fourth lines don't have any punctuation at all, so the sentences make no sense.
I think there’s merit in a hybrid approach, and more people should do this instead of slapping a chatbot everywhere, but your approach seems completely backwards from a usability perspective. Chat interfaces (edit: and similarly, CLIs) are at complete odds with discoverability[1]. In your demo, I’m trying to understand the point of the chatbot when all it does is convert a button, with a pretty decent CTA (“try sending us an email”), to a sentence in the first person? Why not a large “Compose Email” button? And if the chatbot can do more than one thing, how many of these potential “conversation starters” are you going to display?
What we need are designers who can help establish a foundational structure (information architecture) that leads to discoverable and simple UIs to nudge users in the right direction. Once users are at a place where they know what’s possible/available, then perhaps you can allow some fuzziness to help them cross the line to accomplish their task.
What FAQ and pricing pages? Your website makes no mention of pricing at all.
Edit: The "dark" pattern is in the registration flow. It doesn't mention that the app requires a subscription anywhere until after you've created an account. Surely you could add a disclaimer before creating your account? This has nothing to do with the App Store.
Edit 2: I'm not saying you intended to implement a dark pattern. Just perhaps a UX oversight.
Edit 3: The download page would be another great place to put this info, since that's the primary CTA on the home page (there's 4 prominent download buttons).
Yeah, the abstract could use a bit more work. The gist of it is being in a closed-loop cycle with ChatGPT only helps with the task at hand, and not with engaging with the full learning process. Instead they say "When using AI in learning, learners should focus on deepening their understanding of knowledge and actively engage in metacognitive processes such as evaluation, monitoring, and orientation, rather than blindly following ChatGPT's feedback solely to complete tasks efficiently."
There's no reason for both the story count and the story summary to be clickable. It's confusing because:
(a) It's not clear what the number in parentheses even means (until you click and infer)
(b) Separate links makes you think they lead to different pages
Also, echoing another comment, it's not really clear what "incoming" and "outgoing" stories mean. Maybe "new" vs. "stale"?