| |||||||||||||
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the BazaarKamp: A Generation Lost in the BazaarPosted Aug 20, 2012 21:54 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar by landley Parent article: Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar
I don't understand why "shut up and show me the code" isn't the right response to a UI discussion. At the end of the day, user interfaces aren't some magical thing that only experts can fathom. They're just like any other engineering problem.
Unfortunately, there's a strong "popularity contest" aspect to user interfaces. We use QWERTY because QWERTY is familiar. QWERTY is familiar because we use QWERTY. etc. Similarly, a lot of arbitrary choices were made back in the last 20 years (close box on the right of the window, etc). Well-meaning engineers who create "unconventional" user interfaces find that most people are allergic to them, simply because they're unfamilar. (Case study: GNOME3.)
Another aspect is that UIs are targeted at different types of users. emacs and vi are great user interfaces-- for programmers. Not necessarily for non-programmers. Failure to design something with the needs of its intended audience in mind is another leading cause of UX failure.
None of this stuff means that UI design is some sooper secret thing that non-designers can't possibly comprehend. Just know your audience, and stick to the familiar whenever possible, and you'll be most of the way there.
(Log in to post comments)
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 20, 2012 23:31 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
UI design (and its supersets, interaction design and experience design) are not sooper seecret, but to do a Good user interface you have to have a Good toolset and knowledge -- just like to make a good program you have to be a good programmer.
Any programmer can programmer an UI. But if it was done without regard to the best practices of UI design (reading the UI guidelines is mandatory, but by no means sufficient), it will be an ugly and/or clunky UI.
It can even be successful! What you said about QWERTY is true, because one of the tools in the UI designer's toolset is "to establish the current mental model of an user when dealing with a product or service". And one of the great problems with UI design from the point of view of a programmer is that good UI design requires a lot of user testing and friction -- you know, things the proverbial programmer is not quite fond of.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 23, 2012 17:14 UTC (Thu) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link]
No. The "best practices of UI design" are pretty worthless. The main focus should always been the end user and the use case. Otherwise you get nonsense like Ribbon and GNOME3. You end up with lots of academics completely divorced from reality spouting "principles" that may or may not have anything relation to anything.
You end up with UI disasters that go into the release of a project without even getting decent end user feedback first.
Even the much over hyped interfaces created by Apple suffer from this kind of foolish ivory tower approach to real problems.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 23, 2012 18:48 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> No. The "best practices of UI design" are pretty worthless.
As I said in other topic, people who say stuff like this do not know anything about UI design. And this is PROVED by your next phrase:
> The main focus should always been the end user and the use case.
THAT is the FIRST best practice of UI design. Design for the user, thinking about the user, prototyping, iterating, testing with the user, etc.
> Otherwise you get nonsense like Ribbon and GNOME3.
Well, actually... user tests show that the Ribbon can actually be good when it's well designed, and lots of people around the world use Office 201x without lots of problems. Some people actually conducted PROPER testing on it.
GNOME3 does not have anything like that AFAICT, so, you are putting two very different things (united only for your dislike of them) together. Anedoctal evidence == No evidence.
> You end up with UI disasters that go into the release of a project without even getting decent end user feedback first.
Repeating what I already said: *real* UI designers don't do that.
> Even the much over hyped interfaces created by Apple suffer from this kind of foolish ivory tower approach to real problems.
At Apple, there was one engineer responsible for the calls on UI design. They had a lot of good eye for details -- and that's why it is where it is today -- but not a lot of best UI design practices like user testing. Specially in the last interactions. And they are lost in the controversial skeuomorphism fad (the jury is still out if it's good, bad or just plain ugly -- no conclusive user testing AFAIK).
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 23, 2012 19:57 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>Well, actually... user tests show that the Ribbon can actually be good when it's well designed, and lots of people around the world use Office 201x without lots of problems. Some people actually conducted PROPER testing on it.
An user interface which takes lots of vertical space which is at premium instead of being on the sides which are much less used, "PROPER testing"?
Speaking about failure, I remember the Gnome's decision to use "spatial browsing" which was backed supposedly by usability research, they had to revert it in the end.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 23, 2012 20:38 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> An user interface which takes lots of vertical space which is at premium instead of being on the sides which are much less used, "PROPER testing"? Somehow I doubt it!
The MSOffice201x ribbon actually takes less vertical space than LibreOffice's menu plus two (or three, in some cases) lines of toolbars. It is also spatially better distributed, and the size relations between the icons reflect their "use count" in user testings. See Deborah Hix's usability works... IIRC lateral toolsets have a problem because the distance the mouse has to travel is bigger. Anyway, people who do a lot of DTP or other "give me my vertical space" application IME make use of a rotated display, whenever possible!
> Speaking about failure, I remember the Gnome's decision to use "spatial browsing" which was backed supposedly by usability research, they had to revert it in the end.
I have heard those rumors, but I have never seen any real research.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 24, 2012 6:40 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> Anedoctal evidence == No evidence.
Lots of "anecdotes" == overwhelming evidence.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 24, 2012 20:08 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] Lots of "anecdotes" == overwhelming evidence. No. You only get meaningful, much less overwhelming, evidence if you have a representative sample, and listening to whomever yells the loudest is not a reliable way to get it. Improper sampling is exactly why the plural of anecdote is not data.
Kamp: A Generation Lost in the Bazaar Posted Aug 23, 2012 19:42 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] Otherwise you get nonsense like Ribbon and GNOME3. You're not helping yourself out with those examples. It's admittedly anecdotal, but my personal experience with both is that I initially hated them for being different, but found that they're actually more efficient than the old system once I figured out how to use them. If anything, I'd hold them up as examples of how we should be skeptical of people's instinctive and uninformed reaction to UI changes, and pay more attention to people who have actually studied this stuff.
|
|||||||||||||