Never thought of it like that, Joshua. Huh, this thread is kind of making it sound like being a good designer is a rare feat reserved only for those akin to a deity on this world. Eh - practice makes perfect, I guess. I do stand by my point that in many cases, people weren't even trying, and if you do try, you'll get something passable, even if it isn't quite perfect.
On May 29, 8:14 am, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Part of the art of UI design is knowing when to listen to your users > *and* when to ignore them. Most of the many UI flaws in Windows > remain not because Microsoft's designers are unaware of them. :) > > On May 28, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Michael Neale wrote: > > > > > OH, also, and when you fix something, there will be the 10 angry > > emails from people who don't like it now, who liked it then, or don't > > like change, or just like to write angry emails. > > > You know when Toyota changed the Landcruiser from having a basic metal > > dashboard to a modern one they got death threats ! > > > On May 29, 1:09 pm, Ryan Waterer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that you hit upon a very important aspect of good design -- > >> that it > >> is consistent throughout the user's experience. If even one part > >> of the > >> experience is less than satisfactory, then the designers have > >> failed. The > >> user walks away with a bad taste in their mouth. > > >> I'd love to hear Josh's thoughts once JavaOne is over. Best of > >> luck! :) > > >> --Ryan > > >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> Here's a fine example of how clearly somebody wasn't even thinking > >>> straight. This is linux, doing a major update in ubuntu. Just a few > >>> things sprang to mind: > > >>> The theme: Every so often I get a dialog box that tells me that I've > >>> changed some settings file and now apt-get doesn't know what to do; > >>> replace, keep the old one, attempt to merge it. This dialog is so > >>> ridiculously insanely stupid that I don't get why microsoft isn't > >>> showing this to the world and going: TADAAAAA - linux is an amateur > >>> toy that doesn't deserve to play in the real world. It's that dumb. > >>> We're using a gui based updater here that's just a light frontend on > >>> top of apt-get, which is a package manager that basically knows > >>> dependencies and works it all out for you, and can even update > >>> packages by taking down the service, replacing the files, integrate > >>> whatever changes to the settings files are required, download and > >>> install all dependencies, then take the service back up. That's > >>> quite > >>> a feat, and apt-get is really cool. It's probably the principal > >>> reason > >>> why debian is cool, and ubuntu ate redhat's lunch (redhat uses rpm, > >>> which can't do all that). Now that you know, let's move on to how > >>> this > >>> fantastic tool turns into unbelievable suck, just because of bad > >>> user > >>> interface design. Compared to the mind boggling effort that goes > >>> into > >>> maintaining all those packages, keeping a fleet of mirrors running > >>> to > >>> serve all of them, and the effort that went into the technical > >>> design > >>> and development of the apt system, this is small fry: > > >>> [ simple stuff that's easy to fix and should assault your senses > >>> immediately. This isn't the kind of Joe Nuxoll style thinking out of > >>> the box stuff, just general: We need to make sure our user > >>> interfaces > >>> aren't explicitly out to shoot the user in the foot] > > >>> A. it's an enormous dialog box that's totally empty, except for 1 > >>> dropdown box. Anyone remember the microsoft shut down dialog drama? > >>> the entire screen as real estate, and you hide the important bits > >>> in a > >>> -drop down box-, that you have to click. WTF? Dropdown box contains > >>> the same 5 choices every time. Opening it just opens it across a sea > >>> of grey. If you're thinking of user interface design even a little, > >>> the first time you as a developer see this dialog box, you should > >>> file > >>> a 'critical' bug or fix it then and there. You don't let piss like > >>> that go out into the world, period. > > >>> B. One of the times the dialog box popped up it didn't even have a > >>> sensible file name. I had absolutely no idea what I was supposed to > >>> 'keep', 'replace', 'integrate'. > > >>> Now lets dig deeper. We know that apt more or less forces this > >>> situation, if you have any experience with the text output of the > >>> apt- > >>> get tool. But, even with the way apt works, we can do a better job, > >>> even if we're still not in Joe Nuxoll think: > > >>> C. Give me the full path to the settings file, show the diff > >>> between > >>> the old and the new, and offer me an option to manually integrate > >>> the > >>> files. > > >>> And now for the big whammy, let's redesign this entire thing so that > >>> it's actually, you know, usable by a mere mortal: > > >>> D. There's such a thing as file system hooks. Apple uses it in > >>> place > >>> of a registry; all applications have a file in them that explains > >>> which files they can open, and everything you put an app on your > >>> harddisk, a system hook reads this information and makes sure that, > >>> when you right click on such a file, that app shows up in the 'open > >>> with...' dialog. There's neither a registry (windows) nor a big > >>> settings file (linux) to worry about. When you delete the app (there > >>> are no uninstallers on os x, just delete it), the file system hook > >>> removes that app from open with lists. You can apply the same tactic > >>> to settings files: *ANYTIME* I mess with a settings file, apt should > >>> be called so that it can inspect what I just did, see if it can > >>> automatically integrate that change with a possible future update, > >>> and > >>> if not, back up the previous version, and send me a mail (or better > >>> yet, if we're on a GUI, show as I try to save it) how I can fix it > >>> or > >>> where I can edit it so that it does integrate properly. Note that > >>> all > >>> major linux file systems offer this feature. > > >>> NB: For many apt-get installed tools, the settings file for that > >>> tool > >>> is managed by apt, but it 'includes' a special file that you can > >>> safely edit without setting yourself up for future pain. However, > >>> most > >>> manuals on configuring the tool aren't debian/ubuntu aware and point > >>> you to the file you're not actually supposed to edit. Often there > >>> are > >>> some remarks in there by the debian package maintainer that you're > >>> not > >>> supposed to edit this file, but, yeah, as if I'm going to read all > >>> of > >>> those! How perfect would it be that, on saving, apt-get runs in the > >>> background, automatically diffs my changes, and tries to > >>> automatically > >>> move them to the right properties file, -or-, mails me this plan > >>> so I > >>> can confirm or deny it. > > >>> E. Upgrading debian or ubuntu takes a day or two. That's because > >>> for > >>> every conflict and settings problem you get a dialog box. I'm not > >>> going to sit and stare at my computer for the 1 or 2 hours total > >>> runtime it takes to process all updates, so what ends up happening > >>> is > >>> that it just sits there, idle, showing a dialog box, and every > >>> hour or > >>> 3 I check in, turning the process into a long and painful process > >>> that > >>> I loathe. There's no excuse here: the gui tool (and probably apt-get > >>> itself) should figure out all conflicts beforehand, and toss all > >>> dialog boxes my way BEFORE starting the actual process of > >>> downloading > >>> and replacing things. This also allows me to hit 'cancel' midway > >>> through, whereas with current apt-get, you can't really do that > >>> halfway in. > > >>> You could take that opportunity to rethink the design of your dialog > >>> boxes, and for e.g. settings files, show a table, with checkboxes > >>> that > >>> you can quickly mark as replace/keep/integrate, along with e.g. > >>> double > >>> clicking on any entry to show a diff editor so I can manually fix > >>> it. > > >>> Is this easy? Well, I just thought of all of that in the span of 15 > >>> minutes, and compared to the effort behind the mirrors and apt > >>> itself, > >>> developing all of that is indeed easy. And yet, its the difference > >>> between 'utterly useless piece of tripe that makes me want to > >>> throw my > >>> house server out the window every time I dare update my ubuntu', and > >>> 'so awesome I'd shit bricks - and I'd tell all my friends too'. > > >>> On May 29, 3:49 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Well good luck with everything for JavaOne ! And I hope you can > >>>> post > >>>> more on this subject in the future - just resurrect it when you > >>>> have > >>>> some time ! > > >>>> On May 29, 11:47 am, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
