News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Toasts Are Bad UX by lolinder on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @02:04PM (#41302384)
Why not both? A message log can always be consulted later, but it doesn't give you a live feed of things that are happening.

I'm also ADHD and, like OP, I appreciate having the stream of toasts that lets me know what the software did. It's saved my butt a bunch of times when I accidentally do something I didn't mean to (deleting instead of archiving, for example). A message log would just get ignored, but toasts help a ton because they're visible.

Re:Toasts Are Bad UX by digging on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @03:31PM (#41303186)
A message log can also be visible...? The only differences between messages in toasts vs messages in a log is that toasts control the user rather than the other way around.
Re:Toasts Are Bad UX by lolinder on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @05:56PM (#41304510)
Isn't a toast just the tail of a message log that's visible for a few seconds after a new message is added? I don't always want the entire log to be occupying space on my screen, but I do want to see when new items get added.
Re:Toasts Are Bad UX by TeMPOraL on Wednesday August 21, 2024 @07:23AM (#41309160)
The problem is that everyone implements toasts, and no one implements the message log, even though it's the latter that's more important to have.
Re:Toasts Are Bad UX by digging on Wednesday August 21, 2024 @12:42PM (#41311956)
Exactly - a toast is, at best, a nice add-on to a message log. Although I maintain a well implemented message log already serves every single purpose toasts do, better.