5 ms·
One factor of pretty that wasn't discussed is that a pretty (rather than just bling-fueled) interface is often one that has a lot of attention to detail paid to
by brehaut 17y ago
One factor of pretty that wasn't discussed is that a pretty (rather than just bling-fueled) interface is often one that has a lot of attention to detail paid to it, thus it is an indicator that other aspects may have received equivalent care.
- lsc 17y agoReally? I mean, I had one (potential) customer who checked out a rather nice (tier 3) data center and said he didn't like it because the paint on the doors was scratched up. "if they ignore that detail, what other details are they skimping on?" The guy ended up over at one of the cut-rate (tier 1) datacenters that skimped on cooling and power but paid extra attention to things like paint and free drinks. Now, I'm in no position to judge UIs, but I am in a position to judge datacenters, and picking the datacenter with the nicest paint is about as retarded as picking the programmer in the nicest suit. I suspect (though, of course, don't know) that a similar principle applies to UI design and eye candy.
- brehaut 17y agoFirstly, I agree that its certainly not a definite signifier of quality, but it is an indication that care has been paid. Secondly, the floor on the data center to me sounds like its closer to the box the software came in than to the interface itself. From a users perspective the interface _is_ the software whereas the box (and the painted floor) are merely a nicity that you only see once. I can't stretch the analogue any further though because I don't know data centers.
- lsc 17y agoI'm just railing against this idea that unrelated details are an indicator that care has been paid to important things. Now, not everything is like the programmer in a suit; I know so little about UI that it's possible that things I see as unrelated details are not, in fact, unrelated.
- brehaut 17y agoThe connection between pretty and good posited either in the linked article or one of its links (perhaps http://www.uiandus.com/blog/2009/7/27/realizations-of-rounded-rectangles.html http://www.uiandus.com/blog/2009/7/27/realizations-of-rounde... ?) is that the cognitive workload required to process visual cues is (inversely) related to the qualities that are often perceived as 'attractive', e.g. round rectangles, non-garish color schemes, sensible type choices etc.
- lsc 17y agoheh. well, my idea of 'pretty' is probably so far off from yours that I wouldn't know. I'm halfway colorblind, so all your well-tuned colorschemes are for naught. A friend made me a (presumably really nice) multicolored pastel logo for prgmr.com. I thought looked like a yellow circle. Apparently, it had four different colors. But yeah; I mean, I've seen a lot of really bad websites that have obviously had a lot of effort put into making them pretty. Remember the 'click here to enter' intro screens? or flash-based websites? One certainly can be pretty without being usable.
- Qz 17y agoI'm curious... do you have a hard time distinguishing the color magenta/fuchsia from other colors? Or does it stand out pretty well?
- lsc 17y agoI had to look up what that meant; but yeah, uh, I can see purple, but I can have a hard time distinguishing between different purples. In general, the pastel colors look, well, pretty similar.