[scrollaway]

... OH THOSE ARE CHECKBOXES?!

FFS, I have 2.5k pixels of horizontal space, and they're saving up space this way? This isn't even a good idea on mobile where there is no such concept as hover.

The UX designer in me is enraged right now.

[anon012012]

It's probably more a matter of simplifying the look, having portraits first.

If we're trying to one-up Google at design, here's my probably-lame attempt, using the bevel to have the cake and eat it too, hopefully. http://i.imgur.com/X4LQD03.png (I changed the names)

I guess it's still less pretty, I don't know.

[scrollaway]

I don't dislike the idea but it'd need more work graphically. Like this it's barely visible. Making it obvious to the user that this part of the screen is there for your to click on should be priority #1 when you design a nonstandard checkbox.

Edit: And remember, something doesn't necessarily have to be a checkbox for you to select it, it can just be a bevel of some kind. You don't even have to require clicking as an action: You can square-select items (like you would in a file manager), you can long-press (like you would on mobile) etc.

[anon012012]

It's possible my monitor brightness is wrong (nevermind, you're right, I see it now), and thanks for the feedback and sharing tips.

[reitanqild]

if anyone wonders, that funny smell is irony.

I totally agree, this maybe wasn't the best choice, OTOH the reason such things happens is because of - drumroll please - designers.

One mans state of the art in UI is sometimes another mans usability problem.

(That said I really appreciate the good work UX designers do : )

[scrollaway]

Well, yeah, but that's like saying bugs happen because of programmers; you can't juxtapose those things like that. I'm sure it wasn't an accident, I'm saying it's a terrible design decision.

Here's a more detailed rationale as to why:

1. The Checkbox-Avatar (checkvatar!) form creates two completely different functions ("identify" and "select") and puts them on the same button, in the exact same space. This sort of decision needs to be strongly justified when it happens; for example, when you have limited space on a device and can't have more than 3 buttons but require more functionality than that.

In this case, I have a very high amount of space on my screen; the designer knows that because he's giving me the non-mobile UI.

2. The checkbox itself doesn't graphically afford being checked. It's a simple flat, black square that replaces a more complex image. When I first saw it, I thought it was a glitch. Clicking close or next to it doesn't check the box but instead opens the contact details. Bad feedback to the user.

3. Elaborating on 2.: The avatar is critical to identifying a contact. When you hover the contact and the avatar goes away, part of that identity has been lost. It's confusing and can cause the user to have to double check they are even hovering/selecting the correct contact in the first place. To put it in simpler terms: Go in your contact list, look for someone using their avatars (without looking at their name) and attempt to select that person. Your hand/eye coordination is thrown off-balance.

4. Hovering is not possible on all devices. Even if I'm not on mobile, this doesn't work on touch screens. This is design 101.

And all that aside I also see that shift-clicking to select multiple contacts doesn't work. Recreating functionality they/we got right a long time ago is hard...