Are these quasi-UX 'why is this thing the way it is' questions appropriate for the site?

Question

(QUICK NOTE/UPDATE: As Rumi pointed out below, that these questions happen to be about 'real world' objects is a red herring. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that they simply aren't UX questions--they just happen to often be about real world objects. I do think that they are real-world objects is perhaps why they tend to become hot-topics, though...people outside of UX are simply drawn to the triviality aspects of these questions in my opinion)

There's seems to be a trend on UX as of late where someone pops in and ask a question about some physical object and then it gets put on the 'hot topic' list on the right of all the SE sites.

Here's a recent example: Why do speedometers (in the US, at least) go so high?

I don't find these to be very good questions most of the time. But what's a bigger issue is that when they become hot questions, they start attracting a lot of non-UX folks. I get the argument for this (get other eyeballs here) but then what happens is that the answers that start getting the most up-votes tend to veer the question even FURTHER away from the field of UX.

As such, we end up with these highly rated questions that a) aren't really UX focused and b) often have a very non-UX answer. (The top-voted answer often has 5+ times the normal up votes, as well as 5+ times normal comments as the answer is often quite inappropriate from a UX standpoint. Not necessarily the case with the above example question, but in general.)

We're often left with a questionable bit of trivia rather than a truly useful question that applies to the UX field.

Do others share this concern? Is it even something to be concerned about? Maybe it's harmless link-bait to get more eyeballs here?

UPDATE:

To be clear, I'm not against 'real world' objects being a topic here. Of course, real world objects should be designed with UX in mind as much as virtual ones.

What bothers me is the questions that are about 'real world' objects that simply aren't framed as UX questions. They're usually along the lines of:

Why is object x designed this way?

But the answer is often "well, because it wasn't really designed" as much as "marketing, engineering, sales, historical anomaly etc." is the reason.

More examples:

• Why do people mount TVs so high on the wall in their homes?
• Why do manufacturers of most small/medium refrigerators default the door to swing counter-clockwise?
• Why is a manual transmission so complicated?
• Why do showers have "hot" and "cold" knobs rather than "temperature" and "quantity" knobs?
• Why is the 0 next to 9, not next to 1?
• Do signs printed on the road offer a significant advantage for the user over signs on a post?
• Why do stairs have overhangs?
• Why is there no standard layout for computer keyboards?
• Undo History - Why limit it?
• Why is sugar not in a shaker?
• Why are most pens (that we use to write) blue in color?

These become really popular questions but really don't fit the topic of UX as much as "trivia about the manufacturing and sales behind various consumer products."

Answer 1

Too often UX gets caught up in digital interface design and leaves out an enormous part of UX that deals with real world objects and design decisions. In addition, even thinking about real world objects for many UX fans gets them to think about UX in a way that they haven't before, and let's them learn about the processes that go into it.

The downside for many real world UX questions is that they aren't as simple as "should the button be on the left or the right", and so tend to be somewhat broader. The effect is that they often cultivate poor answers as everyone wants to have their 2 cents of input. However, to me, that is a moderation issue, and as mods, we should simply be strict on removing poor answers to questions if it would be possible to answer the question well. Closing the question in cases like that seems unfair to both the person asking the question, and the entire UX community.

Then lastly, real world questions are of interest to a broader range of people, and tends to expose UX.SE to a greater number of new members. The downside is that the new members tend to not be aware of the style of answers that are acceptable, and cause a flood of poor answers - which once again I would argue is a moderation problem. However, the new members also bring in some long term users who stay and add to the site. Just as in many business cases, we need to balance the needs of sometimes conflicting interests.

In my opinion, UX.SE needs to be exposed to a broader audience, and real-world questions tend to do that better than UX specialist questions about the latest research into affordance and skeumorphism are likely to do. We need to be a site that feeds the UX interests of a range of UX fans, from the new to the experienced. To do this better, I would personally like to see more real world questions on UX.SE.

Looking at all the 'quasi' real world questions on this site, I don't see one that couldn't be answered well. Our challenge is to answer them well, and in those answers demonstrate the value of UX to some new eyes.

Answer 2

Yes, I share your concern. These kind of question are not useful. And I admit, I’ve made some of these myself having only a remote connection to UX where the goal wasn’t a real problem I had. Just a silly thought. I am curious of things that are in a way I don’t expect which sometimes leads to asking questions better suited for Quora than UX.SE. But this is my basecamp, and I tweak questions toward UX (since I know how to make it look like one). Those are in the fifty shades of gray area where well worded question from a high rep user passes under the closing bar but the same question coming from a new user with less words doesn’t. This is social engineering on the UX.SE.

Yes, it's something to be concerned about. And I’m thankful for you to bringing the subject to surface. We need to discuss this, and it was also a question for nominees at the last moderator election (How would you handle a situation where…). Real World questions themselves are very much on topic. There are a lot of thing out there having the property user experience. But all Real World questions, aren’t on topic. They need to address a specific UX problem or asking something within the realm of UX. Asking why most cars are black doesn’t do a good question, but asking what effect this may have on users can be good. This is where we (the entire community) need to actively review posts made here.

Link bait on these question is like an ad - gives the wrong picture of the product you're selling. We don’t want to sell UX.SE for something that it isn’t. We get a lot of attention already with good insightful questions on specific UX making our voice heard more than other communities. We’re like “a medium size dog, with a big dog attitude” (Comment stolen from US officials’ internal letters leaked to WikiLeaks and concerned Sweden’s former Minister of Foreign Affair Carl Bildt). Other communities are three times the size of this one, but don’t have near the viral community UX.SE has, and don’t get the attention they deserve. We have more than our fair share of internal ads on hot questions at least twice a month. Let those questions be good ones.

For the particular question, I got a flag for too many comments on an answer, but I didn’t see a flag for off topic question. So I just jumped in, moved the comments on an answer to chat, and went away. Without looking at the question. My bad. I got a second flag for too many comments on the question, jumped in and moved those comments to chat, and read your comment at the top. I left it there because you have an exceptional way of posting great answer in a single sentence. Other comments where moved. Then I saw this post in Meta and thought to myself – you’re right, went back to the question and closed it.

Answer 3

I am concerned about these questions too, but I also think the "real world" part is a red herring.

The problem is with questions which ask "Why is X the way it is?" and even worse, "Why is Y not made in the way Z", with the assumption that Z is the one and only good way to design Y. These are bad questions regardless of whether they are about physical or digital products.

Sure, we've all read the cute stories how a tiny clever design change propelled a small company into market dominion, or saved human lives. Or simply reading anecdotes about the improbable circumstances in which some good designs came to be. But just because we want to hear such a story behind each product we see, it does not mean that it exists. And if it exists, it does not mean that the world knows about it.

The desire for these stories drives the questions. Were we to remain with the questions only, that wouldn't have been too bad. We don't seem to have many journalists or historians willing to research the origins of common product design here, so the questions could just gather tumbleweed badges.

But the problem is that people who don't have any idea of the real answer rush to answer with unproven conjectures. Somebody who's never had to design a dishwasher starts telling you "it has no window in the door because the water in it looks disgusting". And gets tons of votes because it sounds plausible. Frankly, if the actual designer of a product comes along without revealing his identity and states the real, but boring reason, his answer will probably disappear on the third page where nobody reads it.

But the problem is that just because something sounds plausible, it doesn't have to be true. So these questions become kind of the birthing place of a new mythology. They are the opposite of what Stack Exchange attempts to achieve: reliable information.

Stack exchange has long noticed that some very popular types of questions don't fare well with our format, not because they are not interesting, but because voting loses its quality control function. For example, this is why list questions are banned from almost every site. My view is that anything which asks for "why is a design the way it is" should be removed with extreme prejudice.

Some of these questions can certainly be salvaged. "Do traffic lights have user experience advantages over roundabouts?" is a valid question. But to pretend that traffic lights are installed because politicians deliberate over user experience instead of the cost of machines and electricity vs. that guy from Siemens telling them they'll have to fire 200 people from their traffic lights producing plant unless the city installs traffic lights in the newly developed area means we are leading the gullible astray and becoming a laughingstock for the others.

Answer 4

I'm certainly a minority here, but I'm a fan of these questions for reasons articulated in this controversial SO meta post:

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/285545/narrowing-ourselves-into-irrelevance

As you guys put it, this is an area where there are 50 shades of grey. I don't see why we should be ceding popular, UX related questions to Quora. We have a much better chance to build a meaningful global UX community here than Quora or Reddit, so it seems awfully defeatist to point at a set of rules on question scope and shrug.

Popular questions may fall slightly or outside the scope rules of the site, but they have big systemic benefits to the community. They draw outside audiences into UX, have the ability to inspire and educate lay audiences on design and design thinking, and provide social and viral vectors for the broader community to be aware of ux.

I don't believe that the UX.SE community is particularly viral today btw. A majority of the question volume is oriented at users looking to solve narrow and selfish (in the economic sense) questions rather than contribute to a community. Moreover, I'd posit that the stickiness of UX.SE is driven more today by gamification than by community. There is so much more social potential here.

I know I'm in the minority, but I think it important that SE doesn't fall into the well paved trap of historical communities and religions, where the accretion of rules becomes a quagmire that stops the community from evolving positively instead of narrowing itself into introspective bureaucracy.

At least at UX.SE I see a more open-minded disposition towards considering the alternatives. For example, (not?) coincidentally the 3 currently active questions on UX meta are all clustered around this issue:

Answer 5

But the answer is often "well, because it wasn't really designed" as much as "marketing, engineering, sales, etc." is the reason.

All of those are part of what leads to a particular user experience. We might wish such constraints didn't exist, but for every realistic UX question, they do.

Understanding the role of these constraints is part of the process of learning how to do UX. How can you design, despite these constraints?

That being said, they might not be a fit for SE format. These questions usually ask for a definitive "WHY", however, which is not something we can answer. What we can do is point out the pressures that might have led to such a design. In the past we've sometimes edited the questions to ask an answerable version--e.g., turning "Why are lights red?" into "What impact results from lights being red?" or "What factors should I consider when designing a light to be red?" (though that last one sounds like the 'call for opinions' pattern SE tries to avoid).

We often pretend that UX questions can be answered in some Platonic fashion, but every user experience is embedded in the real world. Hence, real world examples often bring up the dirty truth that every deployed UX is a compromise. Let's make that visible, instead of hiding it.

Answer 6

I asked Why do people mount TVs so high on the wall in their homes? because I wanted to know what problem people are trying to solve by doing this (to me) counter-intuitive behavior. It's not a question about the design of the TV but about the environment in which people use a tool. That seemed like UX to me, so I asked it here.

I asked Why do public restrooms place the paper holders so low? for the same reason (though here the "users" are really the installers, not the end users).

At the time I asked these questions (2.5 and 1.5 years ago, respectively) they seemed to be in-scope here. Sometimes scope changes; if so, please just let me know (since closures don't generate user notifications).