3 ms·
While I don't agree with the article's notion about icons, I think it's true that 1990s UIs, especially Windows and Mac, were particularly productive OSes becau
by atombender 8y ago
While I don't agree with the article's notion about icons, I think it's true that 1990s UIs, especially Windows and Mac, were particularly productive OSes because they applied not just common UI idioms but standard interactions: Buttons, menus, windows, drag and drop -- everything was largely consistent between each app.
With the web, we had a lot of consistency for a while simply because browsers didn't allow much customization. Initially, all links were underlined, and form buttons had to look exactly like the browser presented them. But then CSS happened and all bets were off. Underlining is largely gone as a UI idiom. It's no longer evident if something is a link or button, whether you can right click and do "open in new tab" (often not possible if the link is not a URL but a JavaScript function), and so on. A "native" app like Slack is all over the place in terms of UI consistency, compared the strictness of the old IBM CUA standard and others. One may be productive within a single app, but not all of the idioms translate to other apps.
I think we're in a transitional phase where we're halfway between old-style GUIs and something more fluid that approximates real life to a greater degree. Consider the "UI" of a kitchen appliance or the packaging of a new iPhone, or a TV remote control, or just a plain old door. Everyday objects vary wildly in what "idiom" is provided to the user. Some doors have a handle, some have a knob, some have a bar you push. We have the same kind of annoying lack of standards and consistency in the real world, though it's usually evident that you can turn a know and push down on a handle.
One can imagine a future where UIs are gesture-based, for example. Think of the 3D UI from Spielberg's Minority Report. Some of these UIs may need to offer completely new way of interacting with objects (grab and make a fist to copy, open your hand wide to paste, or something) that will be difficult to standardize, much like the real world.
- dsego 8y agoFYI, these idioms you talk about are called "signifiers", which are signs indicating what you can do.
- codetrotter 8y agoThere’s a book that talks about these things called The Design of Everyday Things. I’ve only read parts of it myself but a friend of mine read the whole book and said it was good. From the parts I’ve read I agree. The author has some given some talks and presentations relating to UX as well that can be found on YouTube. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/840.The_Design_of_Everyday_Things https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/840.The_Design_of_Everyd... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Don+Norman https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Don+Norman
- anthk 8y ago> everything was largely consistent between each app. Except MusicMatch Jukebox, Sonique and zillons of "who made this?" shovelware.
- int_19h 8y agoI'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers CUA, and how much it really gave us wrt UX consistency. It's interesting that every time I bring it up, such comments get a lot of upvotes. Clearly there's some demand for this sort of UX, at least in this community.