interaction design – Extra wide tables best practices

I have a table with large (25+) amount of columns in it. Right now it looks very complex and has a horizontal scroll. I want to make it more useful for the users.

enter image description here

One solution is to group columns by area (e.g. People, Time, etc.). This breaks the scanability of the table, which is basically table’s main purpose:

enter image description here

Second solution is to have a column toggle functionality, because obviously no one works with all 25 or so columns at the same time, so letting user decide which columns he needs somewhere near the columns themselves sounds like a good practice. In this case, what is the best location for the button? Below are two solutions I came up with and I don’t particularly like any.

Above the table, inline with search:

enter image description here

Or inline with column headers (seems weird, but has more context):

enter image description here

It can be also enhanced with something like “column priority index” in order to hide the ones with low priority on smaller screens.

Third one is to conduct a user research on how people actually use the table, and maybe present it’s contents in a totally different way.

I would really appreciate any ideas, suggestions, or any other feedback on this.



So here’s the solution I’m currently happy with and going to user test:

enter image description here

I decomposed all columns into four groups using simple card sorting, plus an extra one for the user to create his own.

interaction design – Tradeoffs in buy-in/uptake, retention, usability and engagement when splitting an app in two (or more)

I’m designing an app that, due to its nature, has 3-4 absolutely distinct but interacting role-types. However, importantly, a single person can be tagged with any combination of these roles. One possibility is to have a single app where a user can select the role-type through which they are currently interacting, and another approach is to have separate apps for the roles that coordinate data appropriately.

I’d personally lean towards distinct but communicating apps, but there are scenarios that will force a user to switch roles, hence in the multi-app scenario, switch apps. I am curious if anyone has looked at the effects of switching apps on how usable the “ecosystem of apps” is. Does having to switch apps occasionally affect usability, engagement, retention, confusion, initial uptake, etc? If so, is it known how much the number of switches per day/week modulates the effect?

loading – Two loaders on a screen – good interaction pattern?

Recently noticed a micro-interaction on LinkedIn where there were 2 loaders on the same page – different in size and color. They were probably for loading different types of content. Is this a good UX pattern?

How did I land on this state:
Opened notifications tab and pulled down to refresh feed before notifications got loaded.

Maybe this was not an intended interaction, and happened because of 2 types of content loading simultaneously.
enter image description here

interaction design – Nested sidebar behavior

I have a nested sidebar that goes 3 levels deep. I would like the interaction to slide left/right:

enter image description here

So in this example, if you click on “Jobs” in (1), (2) would then slide in. My question is, when (2) slides in, should its first item be active by default?

I tried that interaction, but the problem is, if the user is creating a job (which would mean they’re filling out a form), if they inadvertently click “< Back”, then the entire screen is going to get replaced by the Home page.

An alternative is – if the user clicks on “Jobs”, this sidebar switches to (2), but nothing is defaulted here. “Create Job” will only bring up that page if they explicitly click on it.

dnd 5e – How do I rule on spells without casters and their interaction with things like Counterspell?

The players in my Curse of Strahd game have reached the Amber Temple. While there, they recently breached a certain door, for which the module indicates

If the doors are reduced to 0 hit points, a greater invisibility spell is cast on the amber golem in this room. The spell lasts for 1 minute.

One of the PC’s is a wizard, and he had a counterspell prepared and a slot available. Initially I thought he might be able to counter this effect, but reading the description of counterspell it states (emphasis mine)

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, the creature’s spell fails and has no effect.

Clearly counterspell targets only spells cast by creatures, and this effect doesn’t appear to have a caster. The use of the passive voice, “a…spell is cast” seems to imply that there is not a caster, and the statement that the spell will last for one minute perhaps is underscoring that point, since if the spell had a caster, that caster would need to maintain Concentration.

It does not even appear to be the case that a specific magic item is casting the spell or granting a spell-like effect, for which there is some guidance in the DMG (and see this question on spells cast by magic items).

Thus as a DM I feel at a loss for how to adjudicate interactions with this spell, both with counterspell and anything else the players might attempt.

After the session I tried to explore whether there was guidance or precedent for spells without casters. I checked the DMG section on creating spells (starts on 283) but didn’t find anything.

Drawing on my experience from earlier editions, I figured if something produced a spell like that it would likely be from a contingency, limited wish, or wish. Checking the 5e descriptions, contingency makes it clear that it can only trigger spells cast on oneself, and furthermore has a duration of just 10 days. It appears that limited wish does not exist in 5e. And wish, the “mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast”, does not explicitly permit any effects with a duration beyond instantaneous except for the duplication of existing spells.

Is there any guidance or precedent for adjudicating a spell without a caster?
Is there any indication of how such an effect is produced?

Or is this just part of “The GM describes the environment” and I should rule by context-informed fiat?

interface – user interaction: different ways of visualizing data

I have a project which contains a piechart. Every group in the piechart has its key, value, percentage and a description.

Of the ways shown below, which is the best to visualize the data? Is there a better way than these?

Note: Groups in legend are shorten for this question, obviously there are more than two.

Way 1


On mouseover of legend or piechart

  • loads numbers in piechart
  • loads detail text
  • selected group will be indented in legend

Way 2


On mouseover of legend or piechart

  • loads numbers in piechart
  • load title into SELECTED GROUP TITLE
  • load detail text into DETAIL TEXT

interaction design – Best UX online courses and certificates for a software developer

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 176 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

What is the interaction between "Touch of Death" and "Undead Fortitude"

The "Way of the Long Death" monk has a feature called "Touch of Death":

Touch of Death

Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, your study of death allows you to extract vitality from another creature as it nears its demise. When you reduce a creature within 5 feet of you to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Wisdom modifier + your monk level (minimum of 1 temporary hit point).

(Bold added for emphasis). How does this work when a WotLD Monk reduces a zombie to 0 hit points and the blow is shrugged off by undead fortitude?

Undead Fortitude

If damage reduces the zombie to 0 hit points, it must make a Constitution saving throw with a DC of 5+the damage taken, unless the damage is radiant or from a critical hit. On a success, the zombie drops to 1 hit point instead.

I could see this working one of two ways:

  1. A zombie takes a hit, and drops to 0 hit points. Then Undead Fortitude kicks in and on a success, the zombie comes back to 1 HP. The zombie had been reduced to 0 hp, so ToD activates.

  2. A zombie takes a hit, and makes a roll to see whether it drops to 0 or 1 HP. On a success, it drops to 1 HP and had never dropped to 0, therefore ToD does not activate.

Is there any official ruling on this case? If not, what is a reasonable interpretation of these rules?

Brainstorming: how to handle a manager/programmer problematic interaction

In one of the company’s im involved with there is a problem between one manager and a programmer. They are both very good at their jobs, but there is constant clashes. I would like to get some feedback to help me sort this out.

The programmer works in cycle’s of 2-5 days, mostly in 6 phrases.

  1. Brainstorming
  2. Create plan.
  3. Coding
  4. Testing.
  5. Implementation.
  6. Clean up the code.

The programmer complains about the manager stepping in when he is in the later stages of the cycle, and often later in the day and start to question the scope of the current cycle, or the larger strategic plan, that it should be changed and a lot more should be included. He says he is "rally mode", and totally focused on the current stage. He say he is more than willing to discuss this when he is rested and its in the beginning of a new cycle. But when he is in the middle of something he feels its very frustrating and unproductive to "step out of the car" and let go of the information currently uploaded in his short-term working memory and go up to the bridge and assume the "commander roll" and start think more long term strategic.

The manager sees it as he job to question the scope of the current cycle or the greater plan when ever see the need. He don’t see any valid reason for not doing this during the daily and scheduled contact.

I’m trying to ask as neutral as I can, so I don’t affect the answers with my own bias. But should i somehow retrain the programmer so he is better prepared to always be able to brainstorm about the larger picture? Should I try to convince the manager that he should hold of the strategic issues until the current cycle is finished and a new cycle is starting?

interaction design – Assignment of one category for each object, What’s the best practice to achieve?

I’m designing a new product where the user can import their current apps to the system. In the system, there are 4 categories that represent the stages for product development, like test, dev, QA, production. By default, all imported ones will be in the test env.

A couple of limitations

Is there a common practice to design the interaction? What is the common mental modal?

I’ve two variations in mind.

enter image description here

enter image description here