Design issue: Consistency in Insights panel

Why are related books given in the format book title-details while related passages are given in the format details-book title? Does Bellingham use an alternative definition of the concept of UI consistency? For those of us with an active visual memory, this type of inconsistency drives us nuts ... no matter how long we have to live with it. Please don't expand the range of your inconsistency flaw.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

GaoLu

Why are related books given in the format book title-details while related passages are given in the format details-book title? Does Bellingham use an alternative definition of the concept of UI consistency? For those of us with an active visual memory, this type of inconsistency drives us nuts ... no matter how long we have to live with it. Please don't expand the range of your inconsistency flaw.

[Y]

Eli Evans (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1291872#Comment_1291872

Thanks! I'll take this feedback to the team.

The design principles they are working with is "the most important information goes first," and "same things look the same, different things look different," not "every visual must always match".

In Related Books, the cards inform you that there is a book you can use to dig further, so the title is the important thing. The content that follows is a preview of the book's content, secondary. I would expect all cards in this section to have the same visual.
In Related Passages, the summary of relevant facts is paramount, and you may not need to open a book to explore further. The purpose is to lead to other passages. The title acts as a citation, but opening the book is secondary. This UI pattern may eventually extend to other cards that have similar purpose, but I can see how it looks like an outlier so long as there is only one of them.

That principle is applied consistently, but does result in different visuals. This may make more sense when all the cards we've imagined are shipped, but even so, I'll let folks know that it's causing some irritation in the meantime for consideration.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1291896#Comment_1291896

The design principles they are working with is "the most important information goes first," and "same things look the same, different things look different," not "every visual must always match".

I realize that design principles are always compromises but my issue with this particular principle in this particular environment is that when a column of data is referred to intermittently rather than consistently read all the way through, visual memory clues are critical to getting one's focus on the right data quickly. Identifying the data as a UI concern trumps the use of the data because your eyes are going back and forth between the text and the Insight column. I would agree with your principle in cases where one in reading down a column as the consistent action.

Eli Evans (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1291904#Comment_1291904

Understood! That's good clarifying context and I agree at least in principle. (In practice, many moving parts, as always.)