The tools help streamline parts of code that can be streamlined. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What is intuitive to one person can be cumbersome and clunky to another, or too simple and limiting to someone else. From my understanding, we want to design to a certain demographic, and have it be as easy to use for that demographic.
I believe that UI is art. Just like art, you can teach design principles, concepts and techniques. Just like with art, some people with be naturally gifted, and understand ways to present the information in an effective manner. I also believe that there are some people who just "get" server side logic extremely well; it comes naturally. We can just look at Dick and Joe for examples of both types. This doesn't mean that Dick can't learn to be extremely good at designing UI. I agree with Michael in that doing a "good" UI is often more expensive. I think that it's the least understood, and put off until the last in most cases. As Joe has argued in the past, this is extremely bad for a product. I'll go a step further -- I think that bad UI is more damaging and costly to a product than a poorly written back-end system. While I do enjoy playing computer and console games, they are also a fantastic study of UI design and different approaches. While the complexity of the game varies, a good design does a great job of hiding the complexity and helps with the immersion of the game. A UI that "gets in the way", and forces the user to break immersion is clunky and poorly designed. A different look is the new nintendo system (let's ignore all discussions on the value of the system, the gimmickery, etc). They took a piece of hardware that is difficult to pick up and use and transformed it into something that most everyone recognizes and understands how to use -- a TV remote control. Like my comment above, Nintendo made it so that the "UI" didn't interfere with what the user wanted to accomplish -- play games. Ultimately, I think that is a good definition of a good UI or a good design. Can the user do what they want to do in an easy, efficient manner? On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Michael Neale <[email protected]>wrote: > > good points - and I agree with Mark - change is in fact good, nothing > to be allergic to. > > I think the important point to me was that is very very very hard, and > very very important. I also wish I was better at it - partly that is > practice and study, but I think the bigger thing is facing up to the > fact that this is important and hard - and getting it right will give > you a competitive advantage (a la apple) versus the way the status quo > views it: a detail which is just an annoying cost. > > Unfortunately UI design isn't as respected, at least in some circles, > so its a tough battle. > I am glad there are like minded people here (and Joe's influence is > appreciated). > > The worst thing: doing it right is expensive, so, so expensive, and no > one wants to hear that. In fact as we use tighter tools and languages > which compress the cost in the "other layers", it makes a quality UI > seem proportionally very expensive - I have no idea what to do or > think about that problem. > > On May 28, 11:00 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Same here; I disagree with the notion that its an art and can't be > > learned well if you don't have the knack for it. > > > > I think that most software developers/companies just don't put in the > > effort. No, scratch that - they don't even acknowledge that such a > > thing as design exists. > > > > if you haven't the first clue on user interaction design, and you > > still start off with: I will design the user interaction first, and > > then I'll build whatever I need to make it work, even if this is > > wildly different from how things work under the hood - then you'll get > > a long way already. Sure, getting it -perfect-, that may be an art > > form, but what isn't? (I'm channeling Joe Nuxoll here a bit; he's very > > much against designing the interface of an app to mirror the technical > > implementation, and I think having an innate alarm bell in your head > > whenever you do that is a good thing). > > > > Apple on the other hand takes this so seriously, its practically their > > corporate mantra. They still get it wrong plenty of times - even apple > > isn't perfect, but at least they acknowledge that the world is > > supposed to work User interface first - everything else later. > > > > Simple examples: > > > > Instead of letting your web app write dates like 'May 1st, 2009 > > 12:14', generate '5 hours ago'. That's what people really want. Of > > course the database stores timestamps and not a continually updating > > 'X seconds ago' - but the fact that the database stores timestamps > > does not mean you need to render them as such. Just because Samba has > > 500 settings doesn't mean you need to have a settings dialog with all > > of that; instead, creating some oft employed defaults, and let the > > user pick one of those. If you want to be linuxy about it, over an > > 'advanced...' button that lets you edit this to the exacting specs > > that text configuration of Samba allows - I don't think apple, or the > > right spirit for interface design, is against giving users that kind > > of power if they really want it. The important point is that you don't > > make things needlessly complicated just because you're not willing to > > think beyond the road thats paved out for you due to technical > > circumstances. This is of course a lot harder, but then, making good > > stuff generally isn't. > > > > On May 28, 2:13 am, Mark Hibberd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Michael Neale < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > well replace intuitive with cohesive and consistent etc... do you > > > > agree with the gist of it then? > > > > > Yeh I would. I definitely agree it is underrated, both how difficult > > > and how important it is to get UI right. I just think the article > > > overlooks the point (maybe intentionally) that not every user or user > > > base is the same and that it is pretty easy to find fault with a > > > system/ui when it is not built to the purpose or audience that you are > > > applying it to. > > > > > I think my position can be summarized as: Good UIs are not universal, > > > even if the principles that guide an effective UI are (and with a few > > > exceptions, they are). > > > > > > I so wish I had the skills that is described there, I have an > enormous > > > > amount of respect for those who are able to get it right (I don't > > > > agree that you *can't* learn them), and desperately try to learn more > > > > myself, and practice... > > > > > > I think you could stretch user interface to include major apis, if > you > > > > kind of tilt your head a bit... but still, I think its really the > most > > > > important thing today. > > > > > APIs definitely need to be classed as UI, and treated with a level of > > > respect that is often lacking. There are definite skills that apply > > > across the board to UI, be it API or GUI, like making it easy to do > > > the right thing, making it hard (impossible?) to do the wrong thing. > > > > > One interesting thing is that people feel it is generally acceptable > > > to evolve a GUI but not a programmatic API. I think everyone needs to > > > get over that. Change is awesome. > > > > > Mark. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
