It sucks that this thread is going on right now during JavaOne prep. I'd love to join in. I'll just say this really quick:
Yes, UI design (and visual design in general) is an art. But there is method to the madness. There are rules and guidelines. There are things you can learn and apply in a rigorous manner. And yes, it's even possible for engineers to learn the basics of design (UI and otherwise). I hope to explore this more after JavaOne. In the meantime, stay tuned for some cool stuff next week and feel free to send me your questions on anything. - Josh On May 27, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Ryan Waterer wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
