Ryan, I think what Frederic is trying to say is that this is how business people often think, especially for internal or b2b software.
In the b2c market, unusable products are massively getting ditched. Any business idiot who still thinks you can skimp on UI is getting their pants handed to them in this economy, and rightly so - good riddance! However, even in the b2b sphere I expect UI will climb back in there, simply by way of the invisible hand: Spending extra dosh on making your internal app properly usable is more efficient in the end, so the few companies that don't have the kind of manager Frederic described should eventually eke out an ever larger chunk of the pie. On May 29, 7:00 pm, Ryan Waterer <[email protected]> wrote: > I respectfully disagree with that statement. There are many examples in my > opinion that counter that arguement. For example, one of the reasons that > the new blogging software (and more), squarespace.com, is so hot right now > is because it is easy to use. Look at other products as well -- whether > you hate the ipod or not, for most people it is easy to use. The nintendo > wii (console gaming system) has sold outrageous numbers because it simply > broke a barrier to the market for many people. My grandma is playing > consoles! > > If you are trying to make yourself stand out from other products, you have > to have a good ui. If your product is hard to use, then you will not be as > successfull if you had an easier to use product. I don't get why managers > are still blind to this simple rule in doing business. Managers are too > concerned with just the quick sale, not a long time customer. Look at > yourself -- how many times have you gotten frustrated with a product because > it was difficult to use. If you aren't required to use it in your daily > job, how often are you going to go back? Personally, I find that I'm less > tolerant of crap these days, no matter who the vendor is. > > To even counter your argument about windows -- take a look at Vista, and > then take a look at Windows 7. By all accounts, the underlying software is > almost identical between them. However, they've put a lot of effort in just > making Windows 7 look better, and is more usable. If you look at the > reviews of Windows 7, overall, people are very impressed and discuss at > length how much better Windows 7 is than Vista. > > --Ryan > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Frederic Simon > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Well, the main reason for bad UI is: Good UI does not bring revenues. > > From the 4 variables in software planning: Time, Resources, Features, > > Quality > > Enterprise software managers always remove "Quality" and so "UI". Training > > your users, or imposing bad software on your employees is always more > > efficient than paying software engineers (especially the ones that doesn't > > exists: UI sensitiv programmer). > > If you look at IBM answers about WebSphere or RAD "unusable" or "buggy" > > behavior, they'll answer: Pay for our training! > > If you listen Bill Gates talking about bugs and bad UI of Windows: Debug > > and good UI of Windows does not help Microsoft sell the new version of > > Windows. > > > And until Apple started to be a real player in the software/phone game, > > nobody cared about UI. > > > I'm not an Apple fan, but thank you for bringing back the user experience > > as a important factor in software development. > > > My 2cts, > > Fred. > > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
