4 ms·

Quote from the posting: "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products. For games, this is less of an issue, but for a

by Yaggo 16y ago

Quote from the posting: "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products. For games, this is less of an issue, but for a piece of desktop software your users notice either way." Why do you need cross-platform consistency? Most users use either Mac or Windows port, not both. Instead, focus on consistency _inside_ the platform: give the Mac port "macish" look, because that's what typical Mac user wants – elegant, clutter-free UI. For example, Skype for Mac is pretty nice, while Skype for Windows is ugly as hell (from Mac user's point of view, Windows user may disagree).

tibbon 16y ago
Yep, and that's what we've done. It was interesting to contrast what we have done (now) with Steam, where they went for pretty much the same look/feel that they've had on the Windows side. They do a pretty good job at it imho, but I'm not a UI person myself.
protomyth 16y ago
I'm of the school that your program should respect the conventions, style, and guidelines of the platform it is running on. Anything else is disrespectful of the user's buying decisions.
angelbob 16y ago
One reason is so that your internal testers won't have wildly different experiences. It's much easier to verify one UI than several slightly different UIs. This is similar to the cross-platform user experience, but even companies with very few cross-platform users will usually have a testing department, and have to worry about educating them with the product. 2, 3 or more different interfaces will add a lot to the burden of educating new QA folks.
- heresy 16y ago
  Thinking about your having to train your QA people as opposed to improving the experience of paying customers seems like the wrong way to go about it.
cubicle67 16y ago
As someone who works with Linux, Mac and Windows on a daily basis (Work is most Linux with some Windows, Mac for home) I have a very strong preference for native UIs. My brain seems to have no problem at all switching between the 3 OSs, and remembering all the conventions, shortcuts etc, but I find it's the cross-platform apps that trip me up and cause the most frustration. Why? Because they look sort of native, but they don't work native. Shortcuts are different, menus are different, buttons use different conventions (OK/Cancel in the wrong order), OS specific features don't work (like Cmd Ctrl D) etc. For me, the idea "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products." is a trap, and that the opposite holds true; lack of consistency is good as it tells your brain how that app should behave, but cross-platform consistency is bad as it sends wrong or confusing messages about what to expect re app behaviour.
- Yaggo 16y ago
  So true. That's why use Safari & Mail.app on OS X and before that, Konqueror & KMail on KDE. (They are great apps, too.)

by Yaggo 16y ago

tibbon 16y ago

Yep, and that's what we've done. It was interesting to contrast what we have done (now) with Steam, where they went for pretty much the same look/feel that they've had on the Windows side. They do a pretty good job at it imho, but I'm not a UI person myself.

protomyth 16y ago

I'm of the school that your program should respect the conventions, style, and guidelines of the platform it is running on. Anything else is disrespectful of the user's buying decisions.

angelbob 16y ago

One reason is so that your internal testers won't have wildly different experiences. It's much easier to verify one UI than several slightly different UIs. This is similar to the cross-platform user experience, but even companies with very few cross-platform users will usually have a testing department, and have to worry about educating them with the product. 2, 3 or more different interfaces will add a lot to the burden of educating new QA folks.

heresy 16y ago
Thinking about your having to train your QA people as opposed to improving the experience of paying customers seems like the wrong way to go about it.

cubicle67 16y ago

As someone who works with Linux, Mac and Windows on a daily basis (Work is most Linux with some Windows, Mac for home) I have a very strong preference for native UIs. My brain seems to have no problem at all switching between the 3 OSs, and remembering all the conventions, shortcuts etc, but I find it's the cross-platform apps that trip me up and cause the most frustration. Why? Because they look sort of native, but they don't work native. Shortcuts are different, menus are different, buttons use different conventions (OK/Cancel in the wrong order), OS specific features don't work (like Cmd Ctrl D) etc. For me, the idea "But if you make a totally native UI you now have a lack of consistency between products." is a trap, and that the opposite holds true; lack of consistency is good as it tells your brain how that app should behave, but cross-platform consistency is bad as it sends wrong or confusing messages about what to expect re app behaviour.

Yaggo 16y ago
So true. That's why use Safari & Mail.app on OS X and before that, Konqueror & KMail on KDE. (They are great apps, too.)