5 ms·

Yes. We likely do want to stop companies from attempting to steal users by literally aping the interface from a more successful competitor that spent millions o

Yes. We likely do want to stop companies from attempting to steal users by literally aping the interface from a more successful competitor that spent millions of dollars in UI/UX/HUI research to develop it (opinions on the Office Ribbon notwithstanding). If you cut the title bar off the two screenshots in the previous post, I think most people would be at a loss to tell you which was actually Excel.

tamana 11y ago
When you are a monopoly platform as well as an app provider, you have to give your sharecroppers a little leeway. No one is "stealing users" here.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
The point of UI/UX/HUI guidelines is to ensure consistency of applications' look&feel. Under detailed guidelines, two applications doing exactly the same thing should look exactly the same. If both Microsoft and Corel are aiming for an optimum spreadsheet, the UI of their applications should converge.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  Exactly. People seem to be suggesting that making it a shade of green instead of blue would make the problem disappear (although, isn't that based on the OS theme?) Or should Corel use a completely different icon for 'copy', for example?
- paulojreis 11y ago
  > The point of UI/UX/HUI guidelines is to ensure consistency of applications' look&feel. That's not the focus of UX, at all. Consistency is not an end in itself, it's just a way to achieve predictability and, in consequence, ease-of-use. It's important but not that much (not everyone is an engineer or homo logicus - people do tolerate inconsistency, as incredible as it might seem). Maybe you're thinking this or focusing on UI implementation guidelines. UI/UX (I don't know what you mean by HUI) guidelines should be heuristics/rules of the thumb aimed at ensuring your digital product serves your users in their usage contexts. e.g. saying the button should be blue isn't that much relevant; however, saying "you need an explicit button to confirm a given kind of action" is. > Under detailed guidelines, two applications doing exactly the same thing should look exactly the same. I just quoted this to illustrate how wrongly you are conceiving UX: you're focusing only on the "thing" being done. But UX - even the most square definitions of usability such as ISO 9241 - cares about "who" does it and in which context. So, two applications doing the same thing may look radically different, if used by different people and/or in different contexts. I also think you focus too much on the "look" aspect.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  > If both Microsoft and Corel are aiming for an optimum spreadsheet, the UI of their applications should converge. This implies that UI design is constrained by a fixed, incontrovertible set of physical laws, leaving little room for creativity, which is obviously not true. Sure, there are a large number of guidelines and rules of thumb about what make for a "good" design, but even within those constraints the space of possibilities is infinite.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    True, but notice that one of the most important rule in all UX design everywhere is consistency. This rule by itself is a strong attractor, dragging UI designs together. And while not directly constrained by explicit physical laws, UI space is constrained by mathematical rules of information theory, by our biology (in particular the limbs we have and the brain architecture we all have in common), by interaction media, by our culture, etc. The space of useful designs (as opposed to just pretty) is quite small. There is room for creativity, yes, but changing the shape of a scrollbar arrow button to avoid a lawsuit is not creativity, it's making things different for the sake of them being different. At best it doesn't make usability worse.
Dylan16807 11y ago
I don't see why we would want to do that, from the point of view of maximum consumer good. Companies will try to make good interfaces even knowing they will be copied.
nailer 11y ago
I actually agree that Corel are being scummy here, but you can enforce look and feel without patenting sliders for zoom and tabbed toolbars. An observation: Corel copied the awful bits (gloss and low contrast blue) as well as the good (organising the toolbars using tabs). If they had only copied the good stuff, they would have come up with the look of Microsoft Office 2010 and perhaps had a better commercial opportunity.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  People seem to be missing the point that the patent isn't for 'sliders' but, as the article points out, that very specific design of slider. Not the functionality. TBH, I think it looks pretty horrible, so no great loss here.

tamana 11y ago

When you are a monopoly platform as well as an app provider, you have to give your sharecroppers a little leeway. No one is "stealing users" here.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

The point of UI/UX/HUI guidelines is to ensure consistency of applications' look&feel. Under detailed guidelines, two applications doing exactly the same thing should look exactly the same. If both Microsoft and Corel are aiming for an optimum spreadsheet, the UI of their applications should converge.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
Exactly. People seem to be suggesting that making it a shade of green instead of blue would make the problem disappear (although, isn't that based on the OS theme?) Or should Corel use a completely different icon for 'copy', for example?
paulojreis 11y ago
> The point of UI/UX/HUI guidelines is to ensure consistency of applications' look&feel. That's not the focus of UX, at all. Consistency is not an end in itself, it's just a way to achieve predictability and, in consequence, ease-of-use. It's important but not that much (not everyone is an engineer or homo logicus - people do tolerate inconsistency, as incredible as it might seem). Maybe you're thinking this or focusing on UI implementation guidelines. UI/UX (I don't know what you mean by HUI) guidelines should be heuristics/rules of the thumb aimed at ensuring your digital product serves your users in their usage contexts. e.g. saying the button should be blue isn't that much relevant; however, saying "you need an explicit button to confirm a given kind of action" is. > Under detailed guidelines, two applications doing exactly the same thing should look exactly the same. I just quoted this to illustrate how wrongly you are conceiving UX: you're focusing only on the "thing" being done. But UX - even the most square definitions of usability such as ISO 9241 - cares about "who" does it and in which context. So, two applications doing the same thing may look radically different, if used by different people and/or in different contexts. I also think you focus too much on the "look" aspect.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
> If both Microsoft and Corel are aiming for an optimum spreadsheet, the UI of their applications should converge. This implies that UI design is constrained by a fixed, incontrovertible set of physical laws, leaving little room for creativity, which is obviously not true. Sure, there are a large number of guidelines and rules of thumb about what make for a "good" design, but even within those constraints the space of possibilities is infinite.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  True, but notice that one of the most important rule in all UX design everywhere is consistency. This rule by itself is a strong attractor, dragging UI designs together. And while not directly constrained by explicit physical laws, UI space is constrained by mathematical rules of information theory, by our biology (in particular the limbs we have and the brain architecture we all have in common), by interaction media, by our culture, etc. The space of useful designs (as opposed to just pretty) is quite small. There is room for creativity, yes, but changing the shape of a scrollbar arrow button to avoid a lawsuit is not creativity, it's making things different for the sake of them being different. At best it doesn't make usability worse.

Dylan16807 11y ago

I don't see why we would want to do that, from the point of view of maximum consumer good. Companies will try to make good interfaces even knowing they will be copied.

nailer 11y ago

I actually agree that Corel are being scummy here, but you can enforce look and feel without patenting sliders for zoom and tabbed toolbars. An observation: Corel copied the awful bits (gloss and low contrast blue) as well as the good (organising the toolbars using tabs). If they had only copied the good stuff, they would have come up with the look of Microsoft Office 2010 and perhaps had a better commercial opportunity.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
People seem to be missing the point that the patent isn't for 'sliders' but, as the article points out, that very specific design of slider. Not the functionality. TBH, I think it looks pretty horrible, so no great loss here.