I really like the distinction of "density in time".
JIRA is a really visually dense application, but it's speed, as well as the number of different screens you normally need to click on makes it feel really sparse despite the dense visuals.
It's not just performance, it's also that the number of clicks to perform common actions is way too high because of feature bloat, extreme levels of customizability, and just plain bad design.
No. Performance is a feature[0]. It's neither good or bad, it's often a desirable feature but it doesn't mean it's bad. A green screen UI will kick the shit out of any modern day web UI (compare old school Infor with a modern SFDC interface). However, it's just another feature, like the ability to create tabs on the UI or use a cursor to move across the screen (vs a keyboard) that contributes to the overall UX.
Unfortunately we’ve had several years of websites absolutely taking the piss when it comes to performance and deploying molasses slow dumpster fires.
A decent level of performance these days should be table stakes, and _high_ performance is a feature. Software that’s molasses slow _is bad software_ these days.
I with you. But maybe there's a line it crosses from feature to critical impediment?
A great example is YouTube in a web browser. My internet is 350 Mbps with 20-40ms latency. Trying to load YouTube in a new browser tab takes a few to several seconds and I'm forced to wait for it to load because the sign in link doesn't show up until the end of the seizure inducing re-render flashes. Safari, no add ons.
I can't believe it takes so long and I think less of Google as a company because of it. Them speeding it up is not a feature in that case. A trillion dollar technology company ought to provide fast as merely baseline. Anything less is them intentionally disregarding their customer.
It’s fine to take time to crunch output. What needs to be fast is interaction. If it tells you “Hang on I’m working on it” I don’t think anyone minds that as long as you can leave it to cook while doing something else.
The places where Jira is dense it is extremely cluttered and difficult to parse. And then places where I’d like Jira to be dense, it’s inexplicably not.
I’m looking at a Kanban board right now. I have a 41 inch display and I can see a total of 9 issues at a time across three columns. And that’s with basically doing everything I can to maximize the space for the board and minimize how much chrome goes around it. I have no idea how anyone uses this thing on a laptop display. It’s awful.
Differance - the difference that makes a difference.
It's not just more, or density: you need to sum the cost of context switches, which depends on context size and continuity with prior, i.e., delta size, which in turn depends in part on relevance i.e., which parts really matter.
Design by committee (including one person over time) loses the natural continuity and integrity of an initial idea.
Yeah JIRA doesn’t appear to cache any of its information and doesn’t appear to make it’s information cache-friendly for a browser, so you end up accidentally clicking on another issue and then having to click back costing you 30 seconds (on work network).
JIRA is a really visually dense application, but it's speed, as well as the number of different screens you normally need to click on makes it feel really sparse despite the dense visuals.