5 ms·

>> You seem to think that 'allows customisation' and 'defaults that work well' are mutually exclusive for some reason. Well often they are, especially in a com

by w0utert 14y ago

>> You seem to think that 'allows customisation' and 'defaults that work well' are mutually exclusive for some reason. Well often they are, especially in a complex piece of software like a phone OS. Customizability requires trade-offs which may affect usability or performance. More often than not, software that allows skinning looks butt-ugly in the default setting and integrates poorly with the rest of the system (think Java desktop applications etc). Anyway, you still seem to assume I hate customization just because I have no need for it, while my original comment was about one thing, and one thing only: that customization isn't actually a very strong argument to compare mobile OS'es on, primarily because better defaults always beat customizability (and IMO, looking past the homescreen, taking all aspects of the OS and ecosystem into account, iOS is still miles ahead of Android in that regard), but also because it isn't all that interesting to (I assume) most smartphone users. >> I've also never really understood the toddler argument for 'well-designed'. 'Simple', sure, but not 'well-designed'. I'd say 'simple' is almost the penultimate goal of UI design, especially when you are talking about something as complex as a mobile phone. Today everyone takes for granted that even your granny can use a smartphone, but you only have to go back to Windows Mobile to appreciate how much the iPhone has done for smartphone usability. Android users can only be thankful for that because they are profiting from these advancements just as well. >> We don't consider this for any other thing we do - board games aren't considered poorly designed if a toddler can't play them [..] I think this is a bit silly, because most board games are intended to be hard, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in playing and winning them. I fail to see the relevance of the other examples. My impression is that you are thinking about 'well-designed' in terms of aesthetics, while I'm thinking about usability and ergonomics. In that context, well-designed is almost a synonym of 'simple' and 'easy to use'. Kids can now operate a smartphone and do things that my parents would have been dumbfounded if they had to do them on a regular PC, yet my mom is perfectly able to find, install and run applications on her iPad, and use it for everything she previously hated to use her PC for. To me, that means we've made progress in terms of usability. >> I also don't really understand your last paragraph - again, you see to be arguing against customisation because you don't enjoy it That's a strange way of reading what I wrote, because I what I was saying is that I actually used to enjoy customization until I lost interest in it and found out it almost always makes things worse, not better.

vacri 14y ago
I'd say 'simple' is almost the penultimate goal of UI design I've run out of time for big swathes, sorry, but I had to comment on this. 'simple' is not the ideal goal of UI design. 'appropriate' is. You want a UI that is best appropriate for the situation. Sometimes this will indeed be simple. Other times it will not be. As an extreme example, could you imagine a cockpit with a single hardware button and a small grid of soft dials? A more moderate example is that to do serious business work, people still need desktop environments - tablets do not cut it. Mobile OSs are too simple for most serious business work - they don't have an appropriate UI.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Both of your examples are wrong. It is well-known in aerospace industry that cockpit interfaces need vast improvements, and that is actually an active area of research. Pointing to the complexity of an airplane cockpit and saying "look, not all interfaces need to be pretty" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge about the subject. Second of all, the reason desktop environments are still preferred for "serious business work" is because of their features, not their UI. I work for a business-to-business software company that has been around for over 25 years, and our product is on version 9. We recently released an iOS app. It is being adopted slowly, but not because of its interface. The interface on it is actually very, very clean and effective. The problem is that we have not yet had the time to port all the features on the desktop version to the iOS version. Therefore it is not used for "serious" work... yet.
  - vacri 14y ago
    I didn't say the cockpit couldn't have improvement, I said could you imagine running one with a smartphone interface. It's really not appropriate for the situation. Your other example seems to willfully ignore that features are stripped out of mobile OSs for the cause of simplicity, not because they're 'catching up'. Yes, for things that are solely within programs themselves you have a point, but we're talking about the operating system here. Quickly switch between windows? No. Have more than one thing visible at a time? No. Default input mode allows for quick entry of data? No. I mean sure, your program might be the ants pants, but what happens when the user needs to enter data while viewing another document?

by w0utert 14y ago

vacri 14y ago

I'd say 'simple' is almost the penultimate goal of UI design I've run out of time for big swathes, sorry, but I had to comment on this. 'simple' is not the ideal goal of UI design. 'appropriate' is. You want a UI that is best appropriate for the situation. Sometimes this will indeed be simple. Other times it will not be. As an extreme example, could you imagine a cockpit with a single hardware button and a small grid of soft dials? A more moderate example is that to do serious business work, people still need desktop environments - tablets do not cut it. Mobile OSs are too simple for most serious business work - they don't have an appropriate UI.

enraged_camel 14y ago
Both of your examples are wrong. It is well-known in aerospace industry that cockpit interfaces need vast improvements, and that is actually an active area of research. Pointing to the complexity of an airplane cockpit and saying "look, not all interfaces need to be pretty" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge about the subject. Second of all, the reason desktop environments are still preferred for "serious business work" is because of their features, not their UI. I work for a business-to-business software company that has been around for over 25 years, and our product is on version 9. We recently released an iOS app. It is being adopted slowly, but not because of its interface. The interface on it is actually very, very clean and effective. The problem is that we have not yet had the time to port all the features on the desktop version to the iOS version. Therefore it is not used for "serious" work... yet.
- vacri 14y ago
  I didn't say the cockpit couldn't have improvement, I said could you imagine running one with a smartphone interface. It's really not appropriate for the situation. Your other example seems to willfully ignore that features are stripped out of mobile OSs for the cause of simplicity, not because they're 'catching up'. Yes, for things that are solely within programs themselves you have a point, but we're talking about the operating system here. Quickly switch between windows? No. Have more than one thing visible at a time? No. Default input mode allows for quick entry of data? No. I mean sure, your program might be the ants pants, but what happens when the user needs to enter data while viewing another document?