I reject your position entirely.
1. We do not need to conceed change for the sake of change. Change should only happen when there is an improvement. 
2. Metro has flopped. Even MS can't move the market. It's wrong to assume that they dictate UI, or UX culture. Culture is a societial construct. We all participate in it, and no one of us owns it. 
3. Accepting "that's just the way it is" does nothing to improve th situation, and I an apalled at your resignation to it. There's a great quote "Well-behaved women seldom make history". The status quo is never an improvement or news worthy.
4. I'm not saying things were better. As I've stated gloss was getting out of hand and information density was too high. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have to sacrifice up buttons of the most important actions to the design gods, and hide that functionality behind a right click.
5. As as 35 year vetern of computer UIs, I've seen changes over time,  and it is natural for big changes to be resisted. But I don't really care about flat, skeumorphic, gloss, material, metro, I care that the UI is /intiutive/. The primary use cases should be obvious and easy to perform. While the kit/build "buttons" at the top pf the Projects editor were getting out of control, the clean up is very welcome. But the two things that I want to do when I'm in this view are change the build/run settings (which survives, thank goodness) or add a kit. No where is there a button for adding a kit. There is no way to tell there is a context menu availible. Also, having the context menu availibl e when over project settings is bad design. Basic UX is that when I'm right clicking on something I get a context menu for that something. But the contect menu doesn't apply to what I'm clicking on, it applies to the whole frame. Very simply, the context menu shuold be removed and two buttons added under "Build & Run" which are "Import build" and "Add Kit". You added a non-obvious required click between me and the function I want. 
6. Furthermore, you could have extended the "tree" (I still don't see a tree) to also include the build configuration (Release, Debug) under the Build or Run items for that kit. Why did the tree terminate where it did? You added another 2 clicks for me. I could have just clicked on "Release" in the tree, but now I have to click on Build, then click the drop-down (+1) , then click again to select the one I want (+1).
 
Does anyone do usability studies any more? I can't be the only one that is appauled by this [industry wide] regression of UX. I remember when click depth (counts) was a thing. 
 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 1:15 PM
From: "Ariel Molina" <ar...@edis.mx>
To: "Mike Jackson" <imikejack...@gmail.com>
Cc: qt-creator <qt-creator@qt-project.org>, "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com>
Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Lost in 4.2
Mike, 
 
It's romatic to look at good old times, and I understand your frustation, but things are just that way now. You need the market force of Apple, Google or Microsoft to set a trend (just like skeu-then-flat, paper and metro).
 
Better to adapt, there are more than one way to do things right,
 
Cheer up!
 
Ariel
 
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mike Jackson <imikejack...@gmail.com> wrote:
"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.
 
 
--
Ariel Molina R.
 
Oficina: +52 (222) 3723196
Movil: +521 2226 758874
_______________________________________________
Qt-creator mailing list
Qt-creator@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator

Reply via email to