If you use social networks with a respectable reach, such as LinkedIn or Facebook, you must have encountered quizzes that could be described as a “war of interfaces.” I noted this earlier, but only after the publishing of the information did it occur to me that the matter merits a more in-depth examination, which follows.
The overall structure of these quizzes is straightforward. Different variations of the project are shown, each of which contributes to a larger whole. Typically in the form of a comparison between two alternatives, neither of which is obviously superior at first appearance. In turn, below these two possibilities, you can vote and react using icons. Obviously, the fundamental question for followers is “which item do you believe is superior?”
The ranges and amount of responses under various types of materials provoke contemplation. I’ve had instances with over 20,000 views and several thousand responses.
Initially, I thought the notion was cool. Especially since it blends entertainment and knowledge. How many of the participants were aware that the graphic presentation of the product or the “add to cart” button, which they use automatically on a daily basis, are the result of countless hours of work, revisions, analyses, and tests? The same holds true for larger endeavours. It is often believed that when, for instance, an online store is required, a programmer (or, more typically, an IT specialist) arrives, creates a graphic design textbook, programmes, settings, and publishes it. Thus, many business owners who are developing a store have no notion what they want or what might succeed. And they are left with a completed, accepted, and committed project that is disappointing because it does not sell. From this perspective, ideas with quizzes deserve praise for creating a healthy, thoughtful, and conscientious approach to designing and working with designers.
Motivated by positive motives, I too participated in the fun by publishing my own quiz. When I began reading the comments, though, I discovered some quite insightful constructive criticism, for which I am always thankful.
Not only did the complaints pertain to the entry’s content, but also to the tendency of quizzes in general. Specifically:
- design fragments cannot be compared with zero-one
- quizzes represent a shallow approach to the serious topic of choosing interface elements
- behind this fashion there is a banal way of “like farms” and gaining reach
- the authors are concerned only with their ego
As you can see, the primary objective of quizzes on social media is to have fun and, without a doubt, to expand your audience. The concept is simple and straightforward, making it easy to detect and comprehend. Therefore, the public gets access to brief, time-passing posts and may observe how many individuals share the same opinion.
And what are the benefits of such voting for the author?
It is simpler to describe what it does not do. My opinion could be a continuation of the points made previously. The “intuition” community quiz does not indicate if a certain element design idea is superior or whether the design itself is superior. These evaluations should not consider the extracted fragment, but rather the context in which it plays a predetermined role. You must also consider the sales situation: for whom the offered design is intended, what problem we wish to solve, what qualities these particular individuals would value,… the necessary questions are so numerous that incorporating them in the description would ruin the entire experience.
In the meantime, countless voters discuss their viewpoints in the comments and even suggest ways to improve a certain project. This is obviously irrelevant, given there is no serious discussion of the above questions’ answers. Voting in the community alone does not result in the creation of universal solutions on which designers might gamble the project.
The disparity between voters and the disorder in debates rife with subjective emotions and preferences further discourages the findings of the quiz from being regarded seriously.
Some will treat the topic lightly, while others will take it very seriously, and it is not always easy to distinguish between these perspectives. Therefore, it is safer to accept the truth that formlessness and entertainment take precedence in this instance. Internet users, who are frequently business owners or other decision-makers, should be made aware of the factors to consider when creating the interface for Internet-based activities.
In addition to unnecessarily inciting stormy conversations, the absence of a signal that the quiz is enjoyable poses the risk of some recipients believing that this is how websites, websites, and stores are produced – that these votes are determined by the subjective feelings of the evaluators. I recall that one of the commenters under the post said that someone in her immediate vicinity had the notion during the meeting to convert costly examinations into quizzes on LinkedIn and base subsequent actions on several thousand subjective responses. Thus, it is evident that the social entertainment role can be elevated to professional research. However, such a mindset carries with it significant risks. Fortunately, social media usage patterns are such that damaging comments are frequently met with passionate answers that ground you in reality and emphasize the hazards of “taking shortcuts.” As you can see, I am always pleased to hear constructive voices and hear myths debated, as the topic is still important.
What do you think of the quizzes presented here if you encounter them? Are they more harmful than helpful? It’s in them (unfinished sentence?)