9 ms·

User interfaces should be designed for the user, not for the operating system. I feel like more apps should embrace their uniqueness rather than aping whatever

User interfaces should be designed for the user, not for the operating system. I feel like more apps should embrace their uniqueness rather than aping whatever Apple/Google/whatever puts out as the "new standard" every time their design team decides to go in a new direction. A lot of user interface design is managing user expectation (things people have gotten used to, like where a "create" button is or what a "share" icon looks like) versus optimizing for long-term usability of an app (something like Snapchat, with its seemingly-esoteric UI that is actually efficient once one is used to using it). The only reason the author gives for taking this position is that "Participating on someone else’s operating system means you’re on their turf. The author even admits that "I’m not saying either design is superior." So app companies should forego optimizing for user experience to pay respect to the platform that they're on? This is a totally backwards position; apps should respect their users. If that means following all the OS guidelines for a sparingly used app, that's fine. But if that means creating a unique UI and app flow for long-term user happiness, then the app company owes no respect to the "local conventions" of the OS. edit: clarity

tomn 10y ago
I'm not sure I agree. I use one phone, with many apps, so it's helpful if the common parts of all the apps I use behave in the same way. For example, how do I get to the preferences for this app? Via a hamburger menu on the left, or an ellipsis menu on the right? Almost all the apps on my phone that have the concept of making a new item (SMS/instant message/email/calendar event) have the button for doing so in exactly the same place on the screen; this is great as it means only have to learn that action once, and it works for all the apps I use. That is optimised user interface design. Of course designers still need to put in effort to make their apps usable, but making having the common subset of actions work the same across apps is great for users. It's unfortunate that platforms seem to change their interface guidelines all the time (no just the look and feel), as it seems to be having the opposite of the intended effect. The cost benefits of having a single style for an app across platforms is also a significant factor; I'd rather have an app available on my platform than not.
- k__ 10y ago
  I think it is a matter of design skills. If someone wants to make an app, that is better than the rest, they need a unique selling point. If it's bad, people like you won't use it. If it's like all the other ones on the marked, you will use the one with the best marketing. If it's really better than what you are used to, you will ditch the rest. I think: Strife for the last one, but don't get butthurt, when the experiment fails.
andrelaszlo 10y ago
I agree. I felt like this article wanted to make a big deal out of something... well, not super significant. "The options icon is three vertical dots, rather than the three horizontal dots favored by Apple." You could also argue that for someone using Google products, it makes sense that they look and behave roughly the same no matter which platform you're on. The interface is the brand [0] so why try to make it look like an Apple product when it's not? Or maybe the article is right, maybe cognitive workload increases when the options icon is suddenly drawn using vertical dots instead of horizontal ones. I could only find three arguments in the text. One: it's what Microsoft did in the 90's. Two: Users deserve consistency. Three: (implicit) I bought an iPhone because I like the design, and now Google is forcing me to use their apps which doesn't look AS NICE! :) [0]: https://ia.net/know-how/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger https://ia.net/know-how/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger
- johannes1234321 10y ago
  > You could also argue that for someone using Google products, it makes sense that they look and behave roughly the same no matter which platform you're on. That is true if you expect Users to change between devices. But most of the users I observe have only limited amount of devices and typically stay in one camp (i.e. iPhone+iPad) and those care about not having to relearn each UI for each app. True Google tries to push their design as their identity, but that's Google's interest, not the user's.
  - andrelaszlo 10y ago
    I meant using the web app on a computer and the native app on a phone. I usually do both in a single day for docs, gmail, maps, YouTube etc. Maybe my behavior is not typical. The point being that we already KNOW the design language of Google, so the argument seems to be purely about esthetics. The design is consistent, just between Google products instead of between apps on the platform. I didn't get why Google pushing Apple's design would be more in the user's interest? Tip for confused iPhone users : tilt your head/phone 90 degrees :) and the mystery button will turn into a menu button!
  - solaceb 10y ago
return0 10y ago
More specifically, i would suggest Time as an absolute measure of every interface. UI should strive to minimize the time it takes to do anything at the expense of aesthetics.
- mhomde 10y ago
  Unfortunately often it's not as simple as that, you have to offset many difference things: ergonomics, aesthetics, intuitiveness, efficiency, information density etc etc. If you drew "using time as an absolute measure" you'd make an interface that was immensely fast but very difficult to learn
  - return0 10y ago
    Of course time-to-learn should be taken into account. A mobile app which typically has a minimal number of options should not waste the user's time by teaching things that are contrary to what they have learned in the host OS. Aesthetic options can be time-wasting. For example, the current fad of flatness (which ignores our innate capability to recognize depth from gradients) has made almost all the apps i use slower to use by forcing us to read every button.
    - mhomde 10y ago
      Well, I don't think flatness per se is to blame but there should be some affordances to hint what's actionable. Whether that is color/shadows etc might be up for discussion
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Time to learn or discover something is another factor.
  - return0 10y ago
    Given that users learn the OS conventions anyway, it's more economical to design building on the platform.
geocar 10y ago
> The only reason the author gives for taking this position is that "Participating on someone else’s operating system means you’re on their turf. Maybe the point is too subtle? I'm a user that has a hard time with Google apps because I don't use them all the time. If I used them more often, I think I would get used to them, but that doesn't help me start using them. One thing that does help is by being familiar. Google might believe that familiarity is damaging to their brand, and perhaps it is, but I'm used to all of the apps I use being familiar, and so many familiar applications juxtaposed next to Google's unfamiliar applications just makes me think that Google doesn't give a fuck about me.
yoz-y 10y ago
I disagree. Having a consistent UI in all available applications makes it easy for the people to use the applications. One of the main reasons I prefer OSX to Windows is that most of the applications have a set of well defined, consistent behaviours. (For example, Window decorations) On iOS there is no reason for this to be different.
- ericdykstra 10y ago
  Consistent UI can make it easy for people to use applications, for certain applications, sometimes. It's not a hard and fast rule. Let's say I'm making a banking app that is generally just used for people to check their balance and other simple tasks. It's too my advantage to follow the standard UI conventions of the OS. If, however, I'm making an app that I expect the majority use case to be power users that use the app many times per day, I'm going to optimize for them. That may mean seemingly unintuitive gestures, shaking the phone to switch between app modes, radial menus, or something else. I'm not saying that conventions don't have a place, they obviously do, but I think app designers should be able to design the experience for users that they see as best, rather than following convention for the sake of convention.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    I definitely agree. In this particular case however I do not think that Google Maps is considered an application for power users. On mobile especially one has to be very wary of advanced features as the discoverability is really bad.
  - CannisterFlux 10y ago
    Funny you should mention a banking app. The ING banking app on Android is dreadful! It is mostly because it doesn't adhere to any of the standard Android conventions such as a toolbar, sliding left-hand drawer for jumping to different sections, the "back stack" is well handled, etc. It makes moving around a pain. You can't easily jump between your accounts or cards, pressing back after viewing your balance takes you right back to the start, and so on. Another bit of anecdata is the Android ebay app. It used to be an OK not-really-material app, probably iterated on since the Gingerbread days, then Holoiefied. Then about a year ago they updated it to be (I think) more iPhone-like and the fans really hammered it in the Play store. Lots of "what the hell have you done, 1-star" type reviews. I didn't like it much either. The problem was again that navigation was weird and non-standard. Everything was light-grey on white too, which didn't help. Then they updated it again fairly recently to be what you might call a prototypical Android Material-design app, and it really was a relief to see. Now it works great, there are far fewer weird mystery navigation parts and the reviews are picking up. I get what you mean, that apps can add things outside the norm, but they really need to get the base layout right. If you have a few odd/power features, that's great, but don't make the whole app some weird Homer's Car-style monstrosity.
iopq 10y ago
If you're an iOS user, you'll be familiar with how iOS apps work. This is exactly how you cater to the user - iOS users known how to use iOS apps. If you change the UI to look like Android, only the users that also use Android elsewhere would be comfortable with that.
- elmigranto 10y ago
  Still, `Done` button, or `Back` button, or `Edit` are not in the same place in every app. Some apps are `Swipe Left` to delete, some are `Swipe Right`. Not sure what is more frustrating — different looks with different usage patterns for every app; or same look with subtle differences and no way to predict what's where in a new app, or the app you haven't opened for a while.
  - Chevooz4 10y ago
    It's an individual thing. Personally calling someone or managing phone call options on an IOS device frustrates me. There is a whole lot that is not intuitive and hardly dis·cov·er·a·ble. To another extent I find IOS and Apple users that are technologically-illiterate find it hard to adapt or understand other system interfaces. Everyone will have to decide if they get frustrated on their own...
    - elmigranto 10y ago
      Discoverability is a whole other thing with Apple — if it is not immediately obvious, you have almost 0% changes to discover it on your own. For example, you can show iMessage timestamps by "pulling" them from right edge of the screen to the left.
  - anonred 10y ago
    The back button is almost universally located in the upper left corner and is accompanied by the standard swipe right gesture to pop the top of the stack. You're not going to find many apps that implement a custom navigation controller in iOS, and if an app does then it probably doesn't change this behavior. The same goes for the swipe to delete accessory item, as that is another standard iOS UIKit thing. I can't speak for minor buttons like edit and compose etc, but those differences are honestly not very significant to the end user since it's a non-hidden textual nav item.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
> But if that means creating a unique UI and app flow for long-term user happiness, then the app company owes no respect to the "local conventions" of the OS. This PoV has engendered more hatred in me towards software creators than probably any other. Not bad considering I spent 25 years creating software. If I'm on Gnome/Android/Windows 10/OSX/Whatever, frankly I'd prefer everything follows GUI guidelines, standards guides and looks, acts and feels like a native. Trouble is everyone knows best. iTunes "knew better" and made Windows look and feel like a Mac. Fine, except it made the program clunky and stand out for being different. Apple knew best with iMessage and decides it should invisibly merge sms and their own messaging. Result? A dozen times a day it would hang for 10 minutes or so trying to connect to data-unreachable imessage servers. Just send a damn SMS, which is what I wanted in the first place. Google came up with Hangouts that at first release (i've not revisited it) managed to leave out every essential of a messaging app. It was sort-of pretty, but very broken. Google and Microsoft always know best and don't even respect their own standards, let alone anyone else's. Neither are any good at all at designing GUIs and frankly should just stop. Outsource to someone who can. Samsung should take note of this too. I don't want 40 different unique UIs all optimising app flow for long term user happiness as that's anarchy with 50 (sic) different ways of doing things in those 40 apps. I'd prefer it felt a little dated to work on Android or whatever if it was then seamlessly perfect in gestures, GUI and function. Everyone needs to just stop knowing best. 99.9 times out of 100 they don't.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  The merging of iMessage and SMS is something that I've always thought Apple did really well. I don't care how the message is sent, as long as it is sent. Create a quick hierarchy and send in preferable order. That's exactly what it does. I spend a lot of time without either signal or internet when in the countryside and this allows me to seamlessly communicate. The last thing I want is to either switch programs to carry on conversations, or manually choose what kind of message to send. Both would be a pain. My main objectbbion to iMessage is that it only works with other apple products, so I end up using whatsapp with some people - where I need 2 apps to handle simple messaging and conversation histories get split up etc etc.
ryanbrunner 10y ago
One very large component of user happiness is the intuitiveness and familiarity of the user interface, and following user interface guidelines of the host operating system (i.e. the patterns and conventions that the user has already been trained on) will help tremendously with that. That doesn't mean that you should never stray from those guidelines in a pursuit of a better UI, but all other things being equal, diversions from the standards should have to justify themselves. Things like using an Android-standard icon where there's an equivalent in IOS don't come anywhere close to that bar, in my opinion.
ebbv 10y ago
> User interfaces should be designed for the user, not for the operating system. This is a false dichotomy. You can be designed for the user without ignoring platform conventions. Keeping platform conventions (and thus user expectations) in mind is necessary for good design.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
maxxxxx 10y ago
Yes, apps should be designed for the user. However, most users want to get something done on an app without having to learn it for hours. So it's better to adhere to OS conventions and make things predictable. There are so many apps that seem to be done by designers who had too much time on their hands. Even the Google apps are going that route. I barely can't figure out how to use Google maps on android anymore. Also, once something works, don't change every two months. In short, provide real functionality and stop redesigning the surface.
ryandrake 10y ago
When in Rome (do as the Romans do). Bringing all your Android-isms to your iPhone app is going to be confusing and annoying to iOS users, just as if you tried to make a Mac application with menus anchored to the top of the application's main window. I remember when the shoe was on the other foot and people were designing big fat "iOS-style" Back buttons into the upper-left corner of their Android apps. Yuck! How irritating! In a past life, I'd fight with the designers constantly about this. Users don't care "that our brand is consistently portrayed across iOS, Android and Windows Phone". Our app is one of hundreds on our their phones! So we need to conform to the UI patterns that they are already comfortable with (whether you think they are good or bad). Not to mention that using a standard UI element in iOS is three or four lines of code-behind, whereas building a custom control can be up to several hundreds, and is more likely to break the next time Apple tweaks its standard look and feel. Finally, I'd like to see the results of the user studies Google did to determine that iOS users would be comfortable switching over to "Android mode" when they happened to launch a Google app. For a company that is known for data-driven decisions, surely they have numbers to back up their design choice.
xenadu02 10y ago
> I feel like more apps should embrace their uniqueness rather than aping whatever Apple/Google/whatever puts out as the "new standard" every time their design team decides to go in a new direction. People use lots of different apps. The whole point of conventions and guidelines is to allow users to immediately be productive when switching to a new app, and to lower cognitive overhead when context switching. It's a form of leverage for end users. The reality is most users just want to get a task done and don't give a crap if you think your app is THE #1 MOST IMPORTANT. They already know how to use the platform-provided mail, browser, etc. Take advantage of that leverage unless there is a strong reason to deviate.
badeen 10y ago
Designing for the operating system is actually a form of designing for the user. I believe you should start with standard conventional interfaces wherever you can. Then look for the pain points. What is more difficult in general or in yours specific use case. From there try to build upon the convention and improve it. Sometimes a small tweak can go a long way and other times a larger one is necessary. Yes, longterm usage efficiency should be considered but perhaps even more important is the efficiency for beginners and casual users. This is why “pro” and “consumer” apps exist. Snapchat is not a good example. It is the exception. In fact, it was born out of a desire to make it difficult to figure out so that parents and teachers couldn't spy on you. If every app you downloaded had as steep of a learning curve as Snapchat then the app stores would die as people would give up on apps. I truly fear a day where everybody is trying to copy Snapchat. It is unique and it should stay that way. Not every app should attempt to reinvent the wheel.

tomn 10y ago

I'm not sure I agree. I use one phone, with many apps, so it's helpful if the common parts of all the apps I use behave in the same way. For example, how do I get to the preferences for this app? Via a hamburger menu on the left, or an ellipsis menu on the right? Almost all the apps on my phone that have the concept of making a new item (SMS/instant message/email/calendar event) have the button for doing so in exactly the same place on the screen; this is great as it means only have to learn that action once, and it works for all the apps I use. That is optimised user interface design. Of course designers still need to put in effort to make their apps usable, but making having the common subset of actions work the same across apps is great for users. It's unfortunate that platforms seem to change their interface guidelines all the time (no just the look and feel), as it seems to be having the opposite of the intended effect. The cost benefits of having a single style for an app across platforms is also a significant factor; I'd rather have an app available on my platform than not.

k__ 10y ago
I think it is a matter of design skills. If someone wants to make an app, that is better than the rest, they need a unique selling point. If it's bad, people like you won't use it. If it's like all the other ones on the marked, you will use the one with the best marketing. If it's really better than what you are used to, you will ditch the rest. I think: Strife for the last one, but don't get butthurt, when the experiment fails.

andrelaszlo 10y ago

I agree. I felt like this article wanted to make a big deal out of something... well, not super significant. "The options icon is three vertical dots, rather than the three horizontal dots favored by Apple." You could also argue that for someone using Google products, it makes sense that they look and behave roughly the same no matter which platform you're on. The interface is the brand [0] so why try to make it look like an Apple product when it's not? Or maybe the article is right, maybe cognitive workload increases when the options icon is suddenly drawn using vertical dots instead of horizontal ones. I could only find three arguments in the text. One: it's what Microsoft did in the 90's. Two: Users deserve consistency. Three: (implicit) I bought an iPhone because I like the design, and now Google is forcing me to use their apps which doesn't look AS NICE! :) [0]: https://ia.net/know-how/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger https://ia.net/know-how/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger

johannes1234321 10y ago
> You could also argue that for someone using Google products, it makes sense that they look and behave roughly the same no matter which platform you're on. That is true if you expect Users to change between devices. But most of the users I observe have only limited amount of devices and typically stay in one camp (i.e. iPhone+iPad) and those care about not having to relearn each UI for each app. True Google tries to push their design as their identity, but that's Google's interest, not the user's.
- andrelaszlo 10y ago
  I meant using the web app on a computer and the native app on a phone. I usually do both in a single day for docs, gmail, maps, YouTube etc. Maybe my behavior is not typical. The point being that we already KNOW the design language of Google, so the argument seems to be purely about esthetics. The design is consistent, just between Google products instead of between apps on the platform. I didn't get why Google pushing Apple's design would be more in the user's interest? Tip for confused iPhone users : tilt your head/phone 90 degrees :) and the mystery button will turn into a menu button!
- solaceb 10y ago

return0 10y ago

More specifically, i would suggest Time as an absolute measure of every interface. UI should strive to minimize the time it takes to do anything at the expense of aesthetics.

mhomde 10y ago
Unfortunately often it's not as simple as that, you have to offset many difference things: ergonomics, aesthetics, intuitiveness, efficiency, information density etc etc. If you drew "using time as an absolute measure" you'd make an interface that was immensely fast but very difficult to learn
- return0 10y ago
  Of course time-to-learn should be taken into account. A mobile app which typically has a minimal number of options should not waste the user's time by teaching things that are contrary to what they have learned in the host OS. Aesthetic options can be time-wasting. For example, the current fad of flatness (which ignores our innate capability to recognize depth from gradients) has made almost all the apps i use slower to use by forcing us to read every button.
  - mhomde 10y ago
    Well, I don't think flatness per se is to blame but there should be some affordances to hint what's actionable. Whether that is color/shadows etc might be up for discussion
maxxxxx 10y ago
Time to learn or discover something is another factor.
- return0 10y ago
  Given that users learn the OS conventions anyway, it's more economical to design building on the platform.

geocar 10y ago

> The only reason the author gives for taking this position is that "Participating on someone else’s operating system means you’re on their turf. Maybe the point is too subtle? I'm a user that has a hard time with Google apps because I don't use them all the time. If I used them more often, I think I would get used to them, but that doesn't help me start using them. One thing that does help is by being familiar. Google might believe that familiarity is damaging to their brand, and perhaps it is, but I'm used to all of the apps I use being familiar, and so many familiar applications juxtaposed next to Google's unfamiliar applications just makes me think that Google doesn't give a fuck about me.

yoz-y 10y ago

I disagree. Having a consistent UI in all available applications makes it easy for the people to use the applications. One of the main reasons I prefer OSX to Windows is that most of the applications have a set of well defined, consistent behaviours. (For example, Window decorations) On iOS there is no reason for this to be different.

ericdykstra 10y ago
Consistent UI can make it easy for people to use applications, for certain applications, sometimes. It's not a hard and fast rule. Let's say I'm making a banking app that is generally just used for people to check their balance and other simple tasks. It's too my advantage to follow the standard UI conventions of the OS. If, however, I'm making an app that I expect the majority use case to be power users that use the app many times per day, I'm going to optimize for them. That may mean seemingly unintuitive gestures, shaking the phone to switch between app modes, radial menus, or something else. I'm not saying that conventions don't have a place, they obviously do, but I think app designers should be able to design the experience for users that they see as best, rather than following convention for the sake of convention.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  I definitely agree. In this particular case however I do not think that Google Maps is considered an application for power users. On mobile especially one has to be very wary of advanced features as the discoverability is really bad.
- CannisterFlux 10y ago
  Funny you should mention a banking app. The ING banking app on Android is dreadful! It is mostly because it doesn't adhere to any of the standard Android conventions such as a toolbar, sliding left-hand drawer for jumping to different sections, the "back stack" is well handled, etc. It makes moving around a pain. You can't easily jump between your accounts or cards, pressing back after viewing your balance takes you right back to the start, and so on. Another bit of anecdata is the Android ebay app. It used to be an OK not-really-material app, probably iterated on since the Gingerbread days, then Holoiefied. Then about a year ago they updated it to be (I think) more iPhone-like and the fans really hammered it in the Play store. Lots of "what the hell have you done, 1-star" type reviews. I didn't like it much either. The problem was again that navigation was weird and non-standard. Everything was light-grey on white too, which didn't help. Then they updated it again fairly recently to be what you might call a prototypical Android Material-design app, and it really was a relief to see. Now it works great, there are far fewer weird mystery navigation parts and the reviews are picking up. I get what you mean, that apps can add things outside the norm, but they really need to get the base layout right. If you have a few odd/power features, that's great, but don't make the whole app some weird Homer's Car-style monstrosity.

iopq 10y ago

If you're an iOS user, you'll be familiar with how iOS apps work. This is exactly how you cater to the user - iOS users known how to use iOS apps. If you change the UI to look like Android, only the users that also use Android elsewhere would be comfortable with that.

elmigranto 10y ago
Still, `Done` button, or `Back` button, or `Edit` are not in the same place in every app. Some apps are `Swipe Left` to delete, some are `Swipe Right`. Not sure what is more frustrating — different looks with different usage patterns for every app; or same look with subtle differences and no way to predict what's where in a new app, or the app you haven't opened for a while.
- Chevooz4 10y ago
  It's an individual thing. Personally calling someone or managing phone call options on an IOS device frustrates me. There is a whole lot that is not intuitive and hardly dis·cov·er·a·ble. To another extent I find IOS and Apple users that are technologically-illiterate find it hard to adapt or understand other system interfaces. Everyone will have to decide if they get frustrated on their own...
  - elmigranto 10y ago
    Discoverability is a whole other thing with Apple — if it is not immediately obvious, you have almost 0% changes to discover it on your own. For example, you can show iMessage timestamps by "pulling" them from right edge of the screen to the left.
- anonred 10y ago
  The back button is almost universally located in the upper left corner and is accompanied by the standard swipe right gesture to pop the top of the stack. You're not going to find many apps that implement a custom navigation controller in iOS, and if an app does then it probably doesn't change this behavior. The same goes for the swipe to delete accessory item, as that is another standard iOS UIKit thing. I can't speak for minor buttons like edit and compose etc, but those differences are honestly not very significant to the end user since it's a non-hidden textual nav item.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

> But if that means creating a unique UI and app flow for long-term user happiness, then the app company owes no respect to the "local conventions" of the OS. This PoV has engendered more hatred in me towards software creators than probably any other. Not bad considering I spent 25 years creating software. If I'm on Gnome/Android/Windows 10/OSX/Whatever, frankly I'd prefer everything follows GUI guidelines, standards guides and looks, acts and feels like a native. Trouble is everyone knows best. iTunes "knew better" and made Windows look and feel like a Mac. Fine, except it made the program clunky and stand out for being different. Apple knew best with iMessage and decides it should invisibly merge sms and their own messaging. Result? A dozen times a day it would hang for 10 minutes or so trying to connect to data-unreachable imessage servers. Just send a damn SMS, which is what I wanted in the first place. Google came up with Hangouts that at first release (i've not revisited it) managed to leave out every essential of a messaging app. It was sort-of pretty, but very broken. Google and Microsoft always know best and don't even respect their own standards, let alone anyone else's. Neither are any good at all at designing GUIs and frankly should just stop. Outsource to someone who can. Samsung should take note of this too. I don't want 40 different unique UIs all optimising app flow for long term user happiness as that's anarchy with 50 (sic) different ways of doing things in those 40 apps. I'd prefer it felt a little dated to work on Android or whatever if it was then seamlessly perfect in gestures, GUI and function. Everyone needs to just stop knowing best. 99.9 times out of 100 they don't.

Ntrails 10y ago
The merging of iMessage and SMS is something that I've always thought Apple did really well. I don't care how the message is sent, as long as it is sent. Create a quick hierarchy and send in preferable order. That's exactly what it does. I spend a lot of time without either signal or internet when in the countryside and this allows me to seamlessly communicate. The last thing I want is to either switch programs to carry on conversations, or manually choose what kind of message to send. Both would be a pain. My main objectbbion to iMessage is that it only works with other apple products, so I end up using whatsapp with some people - where I need 2 apps to handle simple messaging and conversation histories get split up etc etc.

ryanbrunner 10y ago

One very large component of user happiness is the intuitiveness and familiarity of the user interface, and following user interface guidelines of the host operating system (i.e. the patterns and conventions that the user has already been trained on) will help tremendously with that. That doesn't mean that you should never stray from those guidelines in a pursuit of a better UI, but all other things being equal, diversions from the standards should have to justify themselves. Things like using an Android-standard icon where there's an equivalent in IOS don't come anywhere close to that bar, in my opinion.

ebbv 10y ago

> User interfaces should be designed for the user, not for the operating system. This is a false dichotomy. You can be designed for the user without ignoring platform conventions. Keeping platform conventions (and thus user expectations) in mind is necessary for good design.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

maxxxxx 10y ago

Yes, apps should be designed for the user. However, most users want to get something done on an app without having to learn it for hours. So it's better to adhere to OS conventions and make things predictable. There are so many apps that seem to be done by designers who had too much time on their hands. Even the Google apps are going that route. I barely can't figure out how to use Google maps on android anymore. Also, once something works, don't change every two months. In short, provide real functionality and stop redesigning the surface.

ryandrake 10y ago

When in Rome (do as the Romans do). Bringing all your Android-isms to your iPhone app is going to be confusing and annoying to iOS users, just as if you tried to make a Mac application with menus anchored to the top of the application's main window. I remember when the shoe was on the other foot and people were designing big fat "iOS-style" Back buttons into the upper-left corner of their Android apps. Yuck! How irritating! In a past life, I'd fight with the designers constantly about this. Users don't care "that our brand is consistently portrayed across iOS, Android and Windows Phone". Our app is one of hundreds on our their phones! So we need to conform to the UI patterns that they are already comfortable with (whether you think they are good or bad). Not to mention that using a standard UI element in iOS is three or four lines of code-behind, whereas building a custom control can be up to several hundreds, and is more likely to break the next time Apple tweaks its standard look and feel. Finally, I'd like to see the results of the user studies Google did to determine that iOS users would be comfortable switching over to "Android mode" when they happened to launch a Google app. For a company that is known for data-driven decisions, surely they have numbers to back up their design choice.

xenadu02 10y ago

> I feel like more apps should embrace their uniqueness rather than aping whatever Apple/Google/whatever puts out as the "new standard" every time their design team decides to go in a new direction. People use lots of different apps. The whole point of conventions and guidelines is to allow users to immediately be productive when switching to a new app, and to lower cognitive overhead when context switching. It's a form of leverage for end users. The reality is most users just want to get a task done and don't give a crap if you think your app is THE #1 MOST IMPORTANT. They already know how to use the platform-provided mail, browser, etc. Take advantage of that leverage unless there is a strong reason to deviate.

badeen 10y ago

Designing for the operating system is actually a form of designing for the user. I believe you should start with standard conventional interfaces wherever you can. Then look for the pain points. What is more difficult in general or in yours specific use case. From there try to build upon the convention and improve it. Sometimes a small tweak can go a long way and other times a larger one is necessary. Yes, longterm usage efficiency should be considered but perhaps even more important is the efficiency for beginners and casual users. This is why “pro” and “consumer” apps exist. Snapchat is not a good example. It is the exception. In fact, it was born out of a desire to make it difficult to figure out so that parents and teachers couldn't spy on you. If every app you downloaded had as steep of a learning curve as Snapchat then the app stores would die as people would give up on apps. I truly fear a day where everybody is trying to copy Snapchat. It is unique and it should stay that way. Not every app should attempt to reinvent the wheel.