4 ms·

Wow, that Windows version was certainly ugly. Why have Windows applications always to suck design wise?

• mekwall 14y ago
  I think you are confusing user interface design with user experience (UX). A text-book UI should be intuitive and easy to use, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be aesthetically pleasing to everyone. I work with UX, and one of the biggest challeges i face is to find a good balance between functionality and aesthetics; what will give the general user base the best possible experience. But you have to realize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, especially when looking at OSX-users and Windows-users, who have such different tastes and demands. Then its probably better to have two different UIs that can bring a great (but not necessarily the same) user experience to two very different crowds.
  • franzus 14y ago
    > I think you are confusing user interface design with user experience (UX) That's just an excuse for people to make ugly UIs. Aesthetics is an integral part of usability. A UX designer who has no clue about aesthetics is worthless.
    • mekwall 14y ago
      What's aesthetically pleasing to a OSX-user might be something totally different to a Windows-user. A UX designer who doesn't know that, is worthless as well ;)
    • prodigal_erik 14y ago
      The more heavily I rely on a good tool, the less attention I need pay it. E.g., Emacs is quite ugly but that only makes it harder to learn, not harder to use.