Mastodawn

ccunning Sep 8, 2025

My Bank Recently Changed Their Interface to Move Money Between Accounts

https://lemmy.world/post/35594848

My Bank Recently Changed Their Interface to Move Money Between Accounts - Lemmy.World

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 Sep 8, 2025

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 Sep 8, 2025

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.

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

walden Sep 8, 2025

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.

theneverfox Sep 8, 2025

I think that my flow is far more natural… But suffice to say I wouldn’t switch it on you either way

walden Sep 8, 2025

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.

theneverfox Sep 8, 2025

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

BlueÆther Sep 8, 2025

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

Randomocity Sep 8, 2025

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?

ccunning Sep 8, 2025

A reasonable point.

Counterpoint: When I want to buy something, I first go to where the thing is; not where I wish it was.

Azzu Sep 8, 2025

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.

walden Sep 8, 2025

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.

Telecaster615 Sep 9, 2025

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

SanctimoniousApe Sep 8, 2025

Seems a convoluted way of looking at it to me, but i guess it’s just another case of different strokes for different folks.

theneverfox Sep 8, 2025

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

SanctimoniousApe Sep 8, 2025

I don’t doubt that, but courses are selected/designed by their teachers - who likely select what fits their pre-existing biases. Virtual 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 to truly start to become trustworthy.

theneverfox Sep 9, 2025

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 Sep 9, 2025

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.

theneverfox Sep 9, 2025

They don’t teach material design or something, they teach you to look at the interfaces people use the most and copy the shorthand and general layout

Then they teach you what not to do… Don’t make buttons appear and disappear, don’t make interactions move things around… These are basically universally confusing

They get into a bit of color theory, making certain actions “weighty” by adding loading, and all sorts of other techniques

But the most important piece is figuring out what the main use cases are, and making the tradeoffs to make the experience as frictionless as possible. Stuff like minimizing clicks, piching things by default, hiding unnecessary information, etc

It’s like teaching art. You put labels on concepts and make them practice picking apart the composition so they can understand the individual elements at play and how they fit together

SanctimoniousApe Sep 10, 2025

I get the gist. I’ll use myself as an example in an attempt to make my point. I hate, Hate, HATE the very reduction of “complication” you’re referring to. Dumbed-down interfaces that contain no “unnecessary information” drive me nuts. What’s unimportant information to you may be important to me.

By all means, design for the “most common use cases,” but the buck stops right there FAR too often anymore. There’s minimal, if any, customizability, alternate layouts that are more information-dense, or just any accommodation for those that didn’t fit that most common use case. It’s dumbing things down for those who don’t want to learn anything, or use their device to it’s fullest capabilities, and those of us who prefer to use our brain just get ignored and have to suffer.

I get the desire to make things approachable for non-technical people, but if that’s all that ever happens then they’ll never learn anything more advanced than that. So our society gets more and more coddled, and capable of things for themselves - making them all the more dependent upon the tech oligarchs, which is, of course, more profitable for them and more power handed over to them.

No thanks.

theneverfox Sep 10, 2025

Well, that’s just capitalism for you. Maintaining code takes man hours, so of course the minute they had the slightest excuse to reduce code and fire people, that became the norm

It’s profit dictating style basically

SanctimoniousApe Sep 10, 2025

I’m aware why it happens, but if even you are aware then that means you know what I’ve said is true. As such, it seems you also should know that you’re not designing for the best interface, but just the one that the largest proportion of the masses are able to use well enough to win out over alternatives in a quest for market domination. Dumbed-down wins in the numbers game, but isn’t necessarily the “best” interface.

Another part in the numbers game is cost. As someone reminded me recently, the “best” solutions rarely win over ones that are “good enough,” but cost the end users less. Technology’s history is veritably littered with superior options that lost out against their competition because of such cost differences.

theneverfox Sep 10, 2025

Definitely… But you can both streamline an interface for the masses without taking away from power users. OSX was a pretty good example of this - they kept a simple veneer, but if you dug a little deeper you used to be able to do some pretty advanced things and configure it all just how you like it

It just takes more time and effort, so it’s becoming rare

SanctimoniousApe Sep 11, 2025

Agreed, and that’s what’s frustrating the shit out of me over where things have been going for several years now.

theneverfox Sep 11, 2025

Sorry friend, but it’s only going to get worse for the foreseeable future

I’m with you lamenting it though, I’m very frustrated too. Everything is breaking, for the stupidest reasons…

For decades now, I’ve joked that the Internet is just a fad… But recently I realized, we might just see it die

grue Sep 8, 2025

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