3 ms·

When I sit down at a computer, I want to run an application and get something done. I don't want a desktop environment in my way, trying to entertain me, or ot

When I sit down at a computer, I want to run an application and get something done. I don't want a desktop environment in my way, trying to entertain me, or otherwise distracting me. I am also not trying to entertain someone else when using a computer [see footnote]. Looking pretty is for art and games. The specific aesthetic that matters when you are working and trying to accomplish something are ergonomics. Is what I need where I need it and easily findable? Below are concrete preferences of mine and likely many others which could lead to a DE prioritizing things other than appearance: - Can I see at a glance my commands and tools, or are they hidden behind "beautiful" panels and other formerly skeuomorphic metaphors that got rubbed down into large blank areas of color? - Do all my commands and tools fit on the screen and aren't separated by seas of overly minimalist whitespace or require clicks in weird, unobvious places or require weird mouse gestures that might be misinterpreted from my normal mouse movements? - I want text labels because I'm literate and can understand words, not impressionistic random icons that look like hieroglyphics. - When I click on something - is there some immediate feedback to give my brain a sense of interactivity? After all that is why I'm using a graphical toolkit and not a serial terminal. My RAM should go to what I'm using the computer for, which is applications, not the DE. Footnote: Some who work in sales or marketing and use computers in front of others, such as paying clients, might actually need to "look pretty" while doing their tasks. Their DE requirements would be different.

frankzander 4y ago
That's also interesting. I know that not everybody have an eye for style like I have. TBH I wreck my nerves if an interface looks like some ugly pile of sh* (no I do not mean the CDE thing). I do not agree with " Looking pretty is for art and games." because if you take a look at some commercial audio plugins for Cubase/ProTools/whatever you'll see that they always look good, fancy and please the eye. They wouldn't invest any money if looking pretty is only for "art and games" and a "simple" formular based interface is everything the customer needs. The remaining points you listed are good point's I'll think over. Thx
- badsectoracula 4y ago
  > I know that not everybody have an eye for style like I have. Another way to think of that is that your taste is not the same as others' - do not let that difference blind you and make you think yours is somehow superior, accept that what you dislike can be something that others do like and this isn't about them lacking something you do not.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  Good point bringing up up audio plugins. I wish many things worked like them. Everything visible/not too much hidden unless it's really complex, available/usually discoverable, and responsive in real time.
- sufficientConds 4y ago
  I don't agree with the point about audio plugins. Functionality is far more important when I'm evaluating audio plugins than looks. If a plugin has a "good, fancy" custom UI sometimes it takes longer to read labels or view the value of a knob. I usually opt for my DAW's default interface over a custom one unless there is additional information in the custom one. I find this keeps me in my flow and lets me manipulate the plugin more efficiently. I'm sure some people buy plugins because how they look, but people also buy wine because the bottle, and books because the cover. Personally I'd rather buy audio plugins because they sound good and get the job done. I hear ProTools and Ableton Live disparaged all the time for having simpler "ugly" UIs. Both programs remain popular because many people enjoy them for reasons other than eye candy. Perhaps it isn't that others don't have an eye for style, but simply that their exist other factors that people prioritize over style.
- Kohrokho 4y ago
  I think ultimately, out of everything invested in, we see that common sense rarely, but occasionally, factors. I think it's more likely that someone had to justify their position as a developer somewhere along the line by taking a fat dump on the work of predecessors and poorly reimplementing the lost functions, calling the inevitable bastardization a 'UI refresh'. Since when has a modern 'invested in' toolkit allowed, for example, to even move the 'X' to close a window elsewhere? Or to set your own background image on the titlebar? Or even... color UI elements? Not long since Chicago! Seems clear to me the tools to 'make things pretty' are being removed, not maintained, if we can say prettiness is based on the artistry of the user. And otherwise, the prettiness that remains is ephemeral and by another's whim. Perhaps as long as it is still pretty, it's not bothersome, and yeah, aesthetic has commercial value. But these days I look at things like Windows's flat looks and ask, 'what the hell is this aesthetic?' They must be spending millions, but I don't find the results appealing at all.

frankzander 4y ago

That's also interesting. I know that not everybody have an eye for style like I have. TBH I wreck my nerves if an interface looks like some ugly pile of sh* (no I do not mean the CDE thing). I do not agree with " Looking pretty is for art and games." because if you take a look at some commercial audio plugins for Cubase/ProTools/whatever you'll see that they always look good, fancy and please the eye. They wouldn't invest any money if looking pretty is only for "art and games" and a "simple" formular based interface is everything the customer needs. The remaining points you listed are good point's I'll think over. Thx

badsectoracula 4y ago
> I know that not everybody have an eye for style like I have. Another way to think of that is that your taste is not the same as others' - do not let that difference blind you and make you think yours is somehow superior, accept that what you dislike can be something that others do like and this isn't about them lacking something you do not.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Good point bringing up up audio plugins. I wish many things worked like them. Everything visible/not too much hidden unless it's really complex, available/usually discoverable, and responsive in real time.
sufficientConds 4y ago
I don't agree with the point about audio plugins. Functionality is far more important when I'm evaluating audio plugins than looks. If a plugin has a "good, fancy" custom UI sometimes it takes longer to read labels or view the value of a knob. I usually opt for my DAW's default interface over a custom one unless there is additional information in the custom one. I find this keeps me in my flow and lets me manipulate the plugin more efficiently. I'm sure some people buy plugins because how they look, but people also buy wine because the bottle, and books because the cover. Personally I'd rather buy audio plugins because they sound good and get the job done. I hear ProTools and Ableton Live disparaged all the time for having simpler "ugly" UIs. Both programs remain popular because many people enjoy them for reasons other than eye candy. Perhaps it isn't that others don't have an eye for style, but simply that their exist other factors that people prioritize over style.
Kohrokho 4y ago
I think ultimately, out of everything invested in, we see that common sense rarely, but occasionally, factors. I think it's more likely that someone had to justify their position as a developer somewhere along the line by taking a fat dump on the work of predecessors and poorly reimplementing the lost functions, calling the inevitable bastardization a 'UI refresh'. Since when has a modern 'invested in' toolkit allowed, for example, to even move the 'X' to close a window elsewhere? Or to set your own background image on the titlebar? Or even... color UI elements? Not long since Chicago! Seems clear to me the tools to 'make things pretty' are being removed, not maintained, if we can say prettiness is based on the artistry of the user. And otherwise, the prettiness that remains is ephemeral and by another's whim. Perhaps as long as it is still pretty, it's not bothersome, and yeah, aesthetic has commercial value. But these days I look at things like Windows's flat looks and ask, 'what the hell is this aesthetic?' They must be spending millions, but I don't find the results appealing at all.