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?

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Honestly, picking the destination first makes more sense.

    But the primary law of UX is you don’t change shit up on people. I’d have taken a stand if I was on that team

    • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Curious why you think destination first makes more sense.

      I just can’t get over the idea that when you move a thing to a different place, you go to where the thing is first so you can take it to the new place.

      • Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        When you pay a bill, do you select who you’re paying then the amount from whichever account, or do you select the amount from an account and then select the company you’re paying?

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          You must be an electrical engineer or something, since you’re apparently so used to thinking about flows backwards.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I mean, I do this professionally, I took courses that break down what makes something feel intuitive

            • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              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.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                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

                • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  15 hours ago

                  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.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you think of it in physical terms , when you move something you have to grab it from its source then go to the destination.

      Like even moving money to pay for something, you take out of your wallet and hand to the cashier.

      Even computer filesystem management is: copy source destination, move source destination

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        It depends on how you look at it, and how it’s presented

        You don’t fill a hole by grabbing dirt and finding a hole, you realize you need to fill a hole, and then you grab/buy materials to fill it in with.

        It’s just a matter of approach. You can frame it in either direction

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          You still have to move dirt from source to destination, especially if there are multiple holes. But yeah maybe they should have a UI toggle

      • Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Can also think like this, “I have an invoice that I need to pay. So I need to pay to there, let me figure out where to get the money from”, i.e. impetus/problem-based thinking instead of process-based thinking.

        The process is move X to Y, but the need to get something to Y actually came first, like Y is an invoice, or an account that is overdrawn, or whatever. Y created the “problem” initially, and then moving from X is the “solution”.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is in a personal bank account though not inter company business