Oops, he did. My email client showed it to me in my inbox and my Creator 
folder. Weird.

Anyway, I can make some statements about how ridiculous the glossiness was in 
the mid 2000s. It was really getting out of hand. And there were information 
density overload, particularly on the PC UI side. But we've whip-sawed back to 
unusable UI for aesthetics. If we could compromise on something halfway between 
both extremes, everyone should be sufficiently happy. 


> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 12:29 PM
> From: "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com>
> To: "Mike Jackson" <imikejack...@gmail.com>
> Cc: qt-creator <qt-creator@qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2
>
> Did you mean to reply to all?
> 
> Because I completely agree and think you should share that. 
> 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 12:21 PM
> > From: "Mike Jackson" <imikejack...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Ariel Molina" <ar...@edis.mx>, qt-creator <qt-creator@qt-project.org>, 
> > "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2
> >
> > "Fashion" is the issue. Just because somebody made something fashionable 
> > does not mean it is correct or easy to use. The younger generation have 
> > never had it easier because they have only known to just tap/click 
> > everywhere until something happens. Let's introduce them to how things 
> > are supposed to work. Go against fashion and with ease of use. We can 
> > cite UI design rule after rule where those rules in the past were based 
> > on meticulous human-computer interaction research. The new generation of 
> > UI/UX designers seemed to have just tossed out all that research for no 
> > good reason.
> > 
> > Example: Information density in icons. We now have access to "retina" 
> > class displays capable of displaying a LOT of information in an icon. 
> > Icon designers have been waiting 30 years for this to occur. And what 
> > happens? All the fashionable designs use an "outline" icon. Really? 
> > Those designers make the user work harder to attain the same information 
> > that a properly designed icon could store.
> > 
> > Basic Color use: Why does everything have to be the same color? (I am 
> > looking at you Apple and your monochrome Finder). Some where after OS X 
> > 10.6.8 Apple decided that actually having nicely colored icons in the 
> > Finder was somehow "bad" so now every folder is the same shade of blue. 
> > That makes it really hard for users to distinguish between the 
> > "Downloads", "Home", "Pictures" or some other important folder that we 
> > pinned to the side of the Finder.
> > 
> > Postbox (An Email Application) recently released a newer version. They 
> > used outline icons and low contrast typography all over the UI. There is 
> > even a point where I have a white outlined folder on a nearly white 
> > background. This just should NOT happen.
> > 
> > Moral of the story. Don't be fashionable. Be correct. Be easy. Back up 
> > your designs with actual user research.
> > 
> > --
> > Mike Jackson  [mike.jack...@bluequartz.net]
> > 
> > 
> > Ariel Molina wrote:
> > > Thing is that what's "easy" is hard to define, it tends to come and go
> > > as fashion goes. For example, current trend (from several years now) is
> > > that youngsters find "flat" easy and skeumorphic ugly simply because
> > > they are used to see things like that. So the UI team have to balance
> > > three things: ease for hardcore veterans, be appealing and "modern" for
> > > the new wave, and being easy to use. So they try hard, and I wish them
> > > the best.
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
> 
_______________________________________________
Qt-creator mailing list
Qt-creator@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator

Reply via email to