3 ms·

On the contrary, I prefer if an app brings a unique and purpose-built UI. For example, 'Clear' the to-do list app is quite amazing. 'Paper' by 53 is another i

by gfosco 14y ago

On the contrary, I prefer if an app brings a unique and purpose-built UI. For example, 'Clear' the to-do list app is quite amazing. 'Paper' by 53 is another incredible interface. 'Figure' by PropellerHead is another awesome example. Why do games get a pass, but everything else is expected to re-use the same library of controls and fonts? I don't want all apps to look the same, they just have to be intuitive. The examples that I listed seem to me to be developed more like a game engine... They are graphical environments, not drag & drop layouts.

HNSucksAss 14y ago
"but everything else is expected to re-use the same library of controls and fonts?" Because when people fire up an application, they're usually trying to get something done; not play Myst with the UI. "Clear" is a great example of what NOT to do. It pointlessly eschews established UI standards that work very well (table views, indentation, disclosure indicators), in favor of invisible gestures and a UI that fails to provide basic information. For example, there's no difference between items and groups of items in the list. Why? The "skinning" fad died for good reason. It's a pain in the ass to have to go on an Easter-egg hunt for basic controls in one app, let alone EVERY app. You provided your own answer with the game analogy. A lot of people rate the value of a game by how long it takes to finish. Applications are exactly the opposite.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
I love Clear and Paper and there are more examples (Tiny Piano, Apple's utilities). But I think the difference is this: It is great if an app "becomes the device" and does its task better than UIKit could do it. But if an app does 'boring' stuff like drilling down into forms to send them, or giving the user a table of settings, then what's the reason to leave UIKit? There is absolutely no UX advantage here, to the contrary, it even has the typical "designer's back buttons" again that don't show where they lead to.

by gfosco 14y ago

HNSucksAss 14y ago

"but everything else is expected to re-use the same library of controls and fonts?" Because when people fire up an application, they're usually trying to get something done; not play Myst with the UI. "Clear" is a great example of what NOT to do. It pointlessly eschews established UI standards that work very well (table views, indentation, disclosure indicators), in favor of invisible gestures and a UI that fails to provide basic information. For example, there's no difference between items and groups of items in the list. Why? The "skinning" fad died for good reason. It's a pain in the ass to have to go on an Easter-egg hunt for basic controls in one app, let alone EVERY app. You provided your own answer with the game analogy. A lot of people rate the value of a game by how long it takes to finish. Applications are exactly the opposite.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

I love Clear and Paper and there are more examples (Tiny Piano, Apple's utilities). But I think the difference is this: It is great if an app "becomes the device" and does its task better than UIKit could do it. But if an app does 'boring' stuff like drilling down into forms to send them, or giving the user a table of settings, then what's the reason to leave UIKit? There is absolutely no UX advantage here, to the contrary, it even has the typical "designer's back buttons" again that don't show where they lead to.