================================================================== On Apr 6, 7:56 am, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > I looked at apple once. OS version 10.5 ish, I think. It seemed to > function, but had such a goofy UI that it was essentially useless. I > never gave them one thin dime and don't intend to. See, I think the > way that OS's lie is as follows; > > Apple: its all about image at the complete expense of functionality. > Think Italian sports car. > MS: kind of like a russian car. It gets you there sortof, but it might > explode along the way. > Linux/other UNIX: like a Japanese pickup. Practical, reliable, > functional, and you can beat the crap out of it and it keeps on going. >
That is hilarious! Made me laugh for a good minute or two, especially the Russian car bit. Anyways, this got me thinking about my experience while working for an ISP and troubleshooting all types of OSes... Bear in mind, I have a lot to say here, especially as I am on my way to be a teacher regarding interface and other subjects in the HCI field. The amount of thought and work that is required to make something easy-to- use facinates me, and is something I have always aspired to be a part of. Hopefully I can pass some of my enthusiasm to those I teach. I really just want to create a way, through creative thinking, for programmers/software engineers to be able to more fully bridge the gap between the science of what they make and the way people use what they create. <begin rant> I think an easy way to see the absence of that bridge is in most operating sytems. You have OSX, which is very pretty and inviting, and tries to do as much as possible without user interaction in any complicated way. So modifying or using anything not expected is difficult to access, since it isn't part of what was specifically designed into the interface. Almost patronizing to me, as if it were assumed I am incapable of doing anything but the least amount of configuring possible - or I should not be trusted with that access. The cost is likely attributed what lbcoder mentioned - it is _supposed_ to be something different than most computers; something like Starbuck's is meant to be vs. regular coffee. On the other side is Windows, that leaves a lot exposed to anyone changing or setting things up, or tries (like magic) to use a "Wizard" to do it for you. Any problems that occur end in crypic messages that alienate the user and rarely offer any guides to resolution, or, -- even better -- prevention. Others, specifically Linux (largely BSD and UNIX as well), have a Developed Subculture that tends to be overwhelming to anyone simply seeking an alternative (though this is steadily improving), so new users do not know where to start. If they don't see computers as an enjoyable technical learning experience, then this option quickly becomes less accessible to the cautiously venturesome user. The bottom line is that there is a thin line between form and function, obviously, but more importantly, there are a lot of different ideas about what "usability" really means. Using a computer as a tool is different than using a computer for the experience. I think that these views can come together if there is a different focus, something that really should be where the whole idea with which any technical engineering design needs to begin. (This is likely what I would teach to the aspiring students coming into this type of field.) Every step of the way, the user's interactions shouldn't start with ease of use or aesthetics, because those are only _after_ the end- design is in the final process. As a general thought that seems to make sense here, though isn't really in line with the topic discussion, are some things that developers might take note of: The question to keep in mind is "Does it make sense?" Power users are not focused on how easy it is to tweak things, and casual users should get where they need to logically, with a minimal learning curve. This is where the best designs I have seen shine the greatest - there are cool looking interfaces, power-horse functions - but in the end, fun and complex function need to be accessible through natural interaction. I believe that the less someone has to think about how to accomplish something using technology, regardless of how complicated the use, the greater chance it has of being usable, and enduring a long life-span. </end rant> That's just my viewpoint currently, let me know if anyone has any insight, as it would be greatly appreciated. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
