Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
erica pfp
erica
@heavygweit
section of a dashboard i'm designing for a smart contract cybersecurity tool 🖊️ a or b? why?
22 replies
0 recast
26 reactions
Eth Experience pfp
Eth Experience
@eth-experience
B is confusing. A is better but needs usability testing IMHO. Lot of terminology in there that many wouldn't necessarily understand entirely
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Brandon Owens pfp
Brandon Owens
@spareventures
Definitely A - leading with categorization groups (I.e. rugpull) provides a single source of context across multiple items. In B this category is repeated multiple times, leading to clutter. In future, can also add some sort of comparison to all projects on your site (so people know how good or bad) overall score is
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chonkles pfp
chonkles
@chonkles.eth
i think A as is because there's built in filtering. in a world where the category pulls/facet counts are clickable I could see B being better if the expected UX is to address issues based on priority so id select the red count first to filter to only those, etc.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Zeronium pfp
Zeronium
@zeronium
A would be better as its easier to understand the scope of information. But the colours are throwing me, even though I know its not part of it. But I don't know how they work in this context, so it makes an A or B choice a little compromised.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
zerodartz🛡🦓 pfp
zerodartz🛡🦓
@zerodartz.eth
id go C that conbines more comapctness of B and clarity of A
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
edwin pfp
edwin
@edwinz.eth
Option A. I think option B is easier to read with this example, but if we assume users can potentially have a long list then it becomes an issue. There could be an option C > Vulnerability overview up top (without the badge numbers) then going into the open panels like option A, but with number badge on right
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
links 🏴
@links
A. Honestly B feels a bit mumbo-jumbo for me ( ie what’s a facet? What’s a rugpull? ). I think a lot gets lost when you collapse it like this.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Louis 👵 🦇🔊 pfp
Louis 👵 🦇🔊
@superlouis.eth
Option A. Empty sections comfort me by making sure they’ve been covered. Perhaps you could add a summary of issue count in each header.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jd 🌺 pfp
jd 🌺
@jdlewin.eth
A. breathing room in the sections gives my mind a chance to compartmentalize the decision-making process
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
cqb pfp
cqb
@cqb
A is way easier to suggest for me
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Aghahowa.base.eth🔵🎩 pfp
Aghahowa.base.eth🔵🎩
@aghahowa.eth
A, it makes it easier for users to peruse through the screen my using common area for related groups.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Bethany - countessellis.eth🎩 pfp
Bethany - countessellis.eth🎩
@ellis
B. More concise and easy to see at a glance when dealing with other things, so less likely to be ignored when attention is focussed elsewhere.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Yong Kang pfp
Yong Kang
@chiayong
A. It's easier to identify components from a look than to figure out what to unwrap in B.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jacker pfp
Jacker
@jacker
A. These lists are lack of context. More descriptions or at least more categories help the users to understand the general order of the security checks.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
CV pfp
CV
@c-v
B. Content density is much better in my opinion
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Wesley— oss/acc pfp
Wesley— oss/acc
@wslyvh.eth
A. for a cleaner overview, more spacing, easier to segregate and order on severity
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0xvalerius.eth pfp
0xvalerius.eth
@0xvalerius
I would go with Option A: much cleaner and organized UI.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Albert pfp
Albert
@bert3
A. Some info are low risk and shouldnt pollute my observation
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jordan Jackson pfp
Jordan Jackson
@samehueasyou
A - seems a bit more clear to me
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction