Choosing the source then the destination is the correct order. The money moves from X to Y, of course you should choose X first and then Y. Destination then source feels inherently wrong to me too
post
Both orders make sense, although switching the order is stupid.
Let me guess, the labels aren't extremely obvious either are they?
They should display all your accounts as a word cloud and have you draw a line (directional arrow) from the source to the destination. Yes, using your finger (on a touchscreen) or the mouse.
#shittyuiideas
My bank did the same and I totally moved money the wrong way and fucked up and over drafted.
Luckily I don't get overdraft fees with my bank. But who the fuck designed putting destination first after years of it being second?
How much a nerd are you? Not in the insulting way though. Could use something like Greasemonkey to rearrange the elements after page load.
For many reasons, I am not recommending that you do so but it is a possibility.
This statement summarizes many of the problems with my modern life.
Yeah, so ... This statement summarizes many of the problems with my modern life.
edit: Also, I like your username. It makes me think of both Discworld and Adventure Time, two things that serve to partially counter the depressing nature of this conversation.
Yes, I am pondering trying to take over the world!
... I'm too tired to actually be funny/relevant, but I appreciate your engagement.
Source then Destination is the usual convention in my mind. I probably wouldn't make a mistake either way because I'm the type to punch shit into my calculator 3 times to make sure.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
I think that my flow is far more natural... But suffice to say I wouldn't switch it on you either way
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.
You must be an electrical engineer or something, since you're apparently so used to thinking about flows backwards.
Seems a convoluted way of looking at it to me, but i guess it's just another case of different strokes for different folks.
If you think of it in physical terms , when you move something you have to grab it from its source then go to the destination.
Like even moving money to pay for something, you take out of your wallet and hand to the cashier.
Even computer filesystem management is: copy source destination, move source destination
It depends on how you look at it, and how it's presented
You don't fill a hole by grabbing dirt and finding a hole, you realize you need to fill a hole, and then you grab/buy materials to fill it in with.
It's just a matter of approach. You can frame it in either direction
Can also think like this, "I have an invoice that I need to pay. So I need to pay to there, let me figure out where to get the money from", i.e. impetus/problem-based thinking instead of process-based thinking.
The process is move X to Y, but the need to get something to Y actually came first, like Y is an invoice, or an account that is overdrawn, or whatever. Y created the "problem" initially, and then moving from X is the "solution".
all 50 comments