Phrase for the opposite of “foolproof”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Is there a concise way to describe something that is poorly designed, such that users are likely to accidentally make errors when using it? I'm looking for pretty much an exact antonym for "foolproof".
As an example, suppose there's a UI for job management that allows jobs to be canceled. When the "Cancel" button is clicked, a dialog appears saying "Canceling will lose job progress. Do you want to let the job finish? [Yes] / [No]" Clicking "No" will actually abort the job. The UI is working as designed, but since many users will not read the full message and assume that the opposite question is being asked, they are likely to use it incorrectly and mistakenly choose the wrong option. The UI itself works as intended and is not directly failing or causing the error, but its design is causing others to make mistakes.
I'd like a concise yet generalizable way to say, "This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]." So far the best word that I have is "confusing" but I'd like something stronger and more specific.
"Error-prone" is close, but I feel like that more strongly means "liable to make mistakes" instead of "cause mistakes to be made."
I'm not satisfied with the following words, because they suggest a defect of implementation (that it can fail even if used "correctly") and don't sufficiently convey an error-causing design: "defective", "faulty", "flawed", "imperfect", "undependable", "unreliable", "fallible"
I would also like to avoid direct or implicit criticism of the creator, so I don't want to say "poorly designed."
phrase-requests
add a comment |
Is there a concise way to describe something that is poorly designed, such that users are likely to accidentally make errors when using it? I'm looking for pretty much an exact antonym for "foolproof".
As an example, suppose there's a UI for job management that allows jobs to be canceled. When the "Cancel" button is clicked, a dialog appears saying "Canceling will lose job progress. Do you want to let the job finish? [Yes] / [No]" Clicking "No" will actually abort the job. The UI is working as designed, but since many users will not read the full message and assume that the opposite question is being asked, they are likely to use it incorrectly and mistakenly choose the wrong option. The UI itself works as intended and is not directly failing or causing the error, but its design is causing others to make mistakes.
I'd like a concise yet generalizable way to say, "This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]." So far the best word that I have is "confusing" but I'd like something stronger and more specific.
"Error-prone" is close, but I feel like that more strongly means "liable to make mistakes" instead of "cause mistakes to be made."
I'm not satisfied with the following words, because they suggest a defect of implementation (that it can fail even if used "correctly") and don't sufficiently convey an error-causing design: "defective", "faulty", "flawed", "imperfect", "undependable", "unreliable", "fallible"
I would also like to avoid direct or implicit criticism of the creator, so I don't want to say "poorly designed."
phrase-requests
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago
add a comment |
Is there a concise way to describe something that is poorly designed, such that users are likely to accidentally make errors when using it? I'm looking for pretty much an exact antonym for "foolproof".
As an example, suppose there's a UI for job management that allows jobs to be canceled. When the "Cancel" button is clicked, a dialog appears saying "Canceling will lose job progress. Do you want to let the job finish? [Yes] / [No]" Clicking "No" will actually abort the job. The UI is working as designed, but since many users will not read the full message and assume that the opposite question is being asked, they are likely to use it incorrectly and mistakenly choose the wrong option. The UI itself works as intended and is not directly failing or causing the error, but its design is causing others to make mistakes.
I'd like a concise yet generalizable way to say, "This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]." So far the best word that I have is "confusing" but I'd like something stronger and more specific.
"Error-prone" is close, but I feel like that more strongly means "liable to make mistakes" instead of "cause mistakes to be made."
I'm not satisfied with the following words, because they suggest a defect of implementation (that it can fail even if used "correctly") and don't sufficiently convey an error-causing design: "defective", "faulty", "flawed", "imperfect", "undependable", "unreliable", "fallible"
I would also like to avoid direct or implicit criticism of the creator, so I don't want to say "poorly designed."
phrase-requests
Is there a concise way to describe something that is poorly designed, such that users are likely to accidentally make errors when using it? I'm looking for pretty much an exact antonym for "foolproof".
As an example, suppose there's a UI for job management that allows jobs to be canceled. When the "Cancel" button is clicked, a dialog appears saying "Canceling will lose job progress. Do you want to let the job finish? [Yes] / [No]" Clicking "No" will actually abort the job. The UI is working as designed, but since many users will not read the full message and assume that the opposite question is being asked, they are likely to use it incorrectly and mistakenly choose the wrong option. The UI itself works as intended and is not directly failing or causing the error, but its design is causing others to make mistakes.
I'd like a concise yet generalizable way to say, "This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]." So far the best word that I have is "confusing" but I'd like something stronger and more specific.
"Error-prone" is close, but I feel like that more strongly means "liable to make mistakes" instead of "cause mistakes to be made."
I'm not satisfied with the following words, because they suggest a defect of implementation (that it can fail even if used "correctly") and don't sufficiently convey an error-causing design: "defective", "faulty", "flawed", "imperfect", "undependable", "unreliable", "fallible"
I would also like to avoid direct or implicit criticism of the creator, so I don't want to say "poorly designed."
phrase-requests
phrase-requests
edited 4 hours ago
MikeJRamsey56
2,249315
2,249315
asked 5 hours ago
MilesMiles
66046
66046
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago
add a comment |
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic
It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
add a comment |
inherently flawed
Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.
-Merriam Webster
So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.
Having said that, another possible word is fallible:
1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible
In short:
The UI is fallible.
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Misleading
Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD
A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f496322%2fphrase-for-the-opposite-of-foolproof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic
It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic
It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic
It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.
This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic
It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.
answered 5 hours ago
David DDavid D
4124
4124
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
add a comment |
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
"Counter-intuitive" would seem to be a very good fit.
– Cascabel
4 hours ago
add a comment |
inherently flawed
Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.
-Merriam Webster
So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
add a comment |
inherently flawed
Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.
-Merriam Webster
So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
add a comment |
inherently flawed
Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.
-Merriam Webster
So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.
inherently flawed
Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.
-Merriam Webster
So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
CascabelCascabel
8,27662957
8,27662957
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
I know the OP said that "flawed" was not adequate for their purpose, I think when accompanied by "inherently" it can work.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
The term does refer to the design, but I disagree that this option makes no judgement of the designer. Whoever designed an inherently flawed UI did a damn poor job.
– Nuclear Wang
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
@NuclearWang ...of course that would be inferred...but not actually implied.
– Cascabel
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.
Having said that, another possible word is fallible:
1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible
In short:
The UI is fallible.
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.
Having said that, another possible word is fallible:
1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible
In short:
The UI is fallible.
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.
Having said that, another possible word is fallible:
1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible
In short:
The UI is fallible.
I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.
Having said that, another possible word is fallible:
1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible
In short:
The UI is fallible.
answered 5 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
21.5k32753
21.5k32753
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
Isn't it more a case that the UI leads the user to be more fallible? Error prone may be better.
– James Random
3 hours ago
1
1
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@JamesRandom I did say that error prone seems like the best choice. ;) But the problem with the question comes from the source of the error. If the question doesn't want to admit poor design or user error (of any kind), it's not clear what the opposite of foolproof could possibly be—because something has to produce an error of some kind . . .
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Misleading
Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD
A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Misleading
Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD
A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Misleading
Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD
A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.
Misleading
Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD
A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.
answered 4 hours ago
MikeJRamsey56MikeJRamsey56
2,249315
2,249315
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
add a comment |
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
ISN’T IT CONFUSING? YES, IT ISN’T.
– MikeJRamsey56
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f496322%2fphrase-for-the-opposite-of-foolproof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Not what you're looking for, I'm sure, but I can't resist suggesting "foolhardy".
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
This UI is a disaster waiting to happen
– Jim
5 hours ago
I think I would go with your own phrase: "This UI is [confusing and] likely to be the cause of frequent user error."
– James Random
3 hours ago
The designer has left ample room for improvement.
– Jim
17 mins ago