It has been the sensible order of choosing the source account then choosing the destination account. Now they’ve switched it to where you have to first choose the destination account then choose the source account.
I understand this shouldn’t be a big deal but my brain just absolutely rejects it and even knowing full well they’ve made the change on several occasions I’ve moved money the wrong way. Sometimes without even realizing it for days.
I don’t think this is simply a muscle memory thing that I’ll eventually get used to; I feel like it’s fundamentally nonsensical and I’m curious if it’s just me. Or am I just being a stubborn old man stuck in his ways?
Sure… If I want $300 in an account, that’s my goal. I don’t want to decrease another account by that amount
So my goal is to move X money into Y account, or maybe all but X money into Y account
The second half is where it comes from. It’s not the goal, it’s the means
But again as I said, flipping this is a worse solution than either direction
You must be an electrical engineer or something, since you’re apparently so used to thinking about flows backwards.
We have very different brains in regards to this subject.
When I pay for something (moving money) the first thing to do is choose the source. Cash, credit card, venmo, etc. Only once I’ve decided that can I pick where to move it… The cashiers hand, credit card machine, scan a venmo barcode, etc.
It’s funny, in all your examples, the need to pay comes first, then your selection of the source.
Like the cashier extends his hand, so the destination is clear, then you think about the source. The credit card machine is clear, then you choose which of your cards to use. The venmo scanner is there, then you choose how to fulfill that.
I think you’re adding more layers to this than what is actually required.
To move money from a to b. Not why it needs to be moved.
To pay a cashier you need to get your money/payment first. That’s the source. Handing it to the cashier is the destination.
Everything else you’ve mentioned is a why and has no bearing on the movement of payment.
That’s my…O2 anyway
It’s not a perfect example. The need to pay sort of starts as soon as you put something in your shopping basket. I’m not transferring money to the cashier unless it’s cash – otherwise it goes somewhere else and eventually the store gets it.
It’s just a thought experiment about something reasonably similar, and the similarities for me start after everything is rung up and it’s time to move money.
I wonder if at least some of it come from western writing: from left => destination right
It affects a lot of descriptions that we use in the west
Alternatively, you go to a store and decide you want to buy something. Now that you know what you want to buy are you doing to use cash, card, or barter?
A reasonable point.
Counterpoint: When I want to buy something, I first go to where the thing is; not where I wish it was.
I think that my flow is far more natural… But suffice to say I wouldn’t switch it on you either way
I looked at three of the banks/brokerages I use and the results are interesting!
The brokerages present you with step by step screens, and first have you choose the “to” account. Then you click ‘Next’ and choose the “from” account.
My bank presents them on the same screen, going top down. On top you pick the “from”, and below it you select “to”.
So, despite my strong opinion, apparently there hasn’t been any consistency in my experience, granted I don’t transfer money very often.
Yeah, it’s basically a UX issue. You can make either one seem more natural depending on how you present it, although if I’m transferring money I probably care more about where it’s going
Seems a convoluted way of looking at it to me, but i guess it’s just another case of different strokes for different folks.
I mean, I do this professionally, I took courses that break down what makes something feel intuitive
I don’t doubt that, but courses are selected/designed by their teachers - who likely select what fits their pre-existing biases. Virtually nothing humans do comes out without biases affecting things, which is what makes the “reproducibility” of studies such an important part of science - and even those reproductions need to be done numerous times by varying parties for the results to truly start to become trustworthy.
In short: there’s no pleasing everybody, but if you’re going to try then you must allow for differences in views and modus operandi.
You realize this is actually a field of study? Like, this isn’t a particularly soft science… Companies have done massive A/B campaigns and written papers on it, universities do studies on it… It’s not just opinion
Yes, as it has been for decades. I also learned some about it back in the early days of the '80s into the '90s. It’s constantly evolving along with the tech (and the capabilities of the current majority of users), so there’s never been much of an absolute set of standards that have withstood the test of time. Again, there are a wide variety of people in the world - all with their own perspectives and ways of doing things. As such, the goal of a universally intuitive interface - while laudable - is a bit of a quixotic pursuit, IMHO. At least until it fully resembles & interacts like real-world objects & beings, anyway.
ETA: They’re more likely eventually going to settle upon a set of standards that is based upon what users have collectively already been forced to learn from using existing interfaces. Once the vast majority of the world’s population is used to and on board with the same way of doing things, that will likely become the “standard” by default. For example, a growing number of people today are only comfortable using their phone, and have never really learned how to use a computer with a similar level of comfort. It will likely remain that way until some new major “paradigm shift” in tech happens (like the shift from PCs to phones) that starts the process anew.