3 ms·

No. But I wouldn’t want some UI designer to remove the ‘SM feature’ entirely simply because he thinks that it’s barely used and only clutters the UI. The user h

No. But I wouldn’t want some UI designer to remove the ‘SM feature’ entirely simply because he thinks that it’s barely used and only clutters the UI. The user has to choose the right tool for the right job and as a designer it is your job to make that decision as easy as possible – surely that includes sometimes not offering a feature, but that will simply force users to choose between your tool and another one if they have a specific job to do. Not to mention that you were probably aiming for something like (special) relativity rather than the SM if you want to compare it to Newton’s formulae. :)

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
> No. But I wouldn’t want some UI designer to remove the ‘SM feature’ entirely simply because he thinks that it’s barely used and only clutters the UI. If the designer is making assumptions based on what "he thinks" and defining function from that, this is simply a poor product and design process. This is designing backwards: the UI is a result of it's function, not the other way around. Given you mention Gnome 3 as an example, I can see where you coming from, and why the trauma about design. Gnome is not necessarily a badly designed product, they just don't cater to your demographics, or most of the Linux user base actually. You might like reading this short book called "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" [1], which is an attempt to formalize the process of design. I highly recommend it, it can be enlightening for people of all disciplines. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form > Not to mention that you were probably aiming for something like (special) relativity rather than the SM if you want to compare it to Newton’s formulae. :) I'm no physicist obviously, but what I was trying to say is: you don't explain the motion of a car thinking about how particles interact, it's the wrong level of abstraction; meanwhile classical mechanics explains this elegantly, even though it doesn't explain everything. There's a balance between conciseness and usefulness, which is the same challenge faced by design, or any other discipline that deals with creating models really.
thangalin 14y ago
If I understand your position correctly, you have offered a false dichotomy: designers must either remove a feature entirely or leave it in and clutter the UI. Here is a simple UI: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/ http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/ Here is the same software, but with a "cluttered" UI: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml It is entirely possible to make simple things simple while adding rich complexity for advanced users. It does, however, take more forethought and planning during development.
- claudius 14y ago
  I rather understood the original link to offer that dichotomy in the last sentence of the third paragraph: ‘Taking away features can be so much harder than adding features, but subtracting often creates the most value for your users.’. But, yes, your example is exactly what _should_ be done, but is often much harder to do than to ‘simply’ reduce everything to the simple UI.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

> No. But I wouldn’t want some UI designer to remove the ‘SM feature’ entirely simply because he thinks that it’s barely used and only clutters the UI. If the designer is making assumptions based on what "he thinks" and defining function from that, this is simply a poor product and design process. This is designing backwards: the UI is a result of it's function, not the other way around. Given you mention Gnome 3 as an example, I can see where you coming from, and why the trauma about design. Gnome is not necessarily a badly designed product, they just don't cater to your demographics, or most of the Linux user base actually. You might like reading this short book called "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" [1], which is an attempt to formalize the process of design. I highly recommend it, it can be enlightening for people of all disciplines. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_the_Synthesis_of_Form > Not to mention that you were probably aiming for something like (special) relativity rather than the SM if you want to compare it to Newton’s formulae. :) I'm no physicist obviously, but what I was trying to say is: you don't explain the motion of a car thinking about how particles interact, it's the wrong level of abstraction; meanwhile classical mechanics explains this elegantly, even though it doesn't explain everything. There's a balance between conciseness and usefulness, which is the same challenge faced by design, or any other discipline that deals with creating models really.

thangalin 14y ago

If I understand your position correctly, you have offered a false dichotomy: designers must either remove a feature entirely or leave it in and clutter the UI. Here is a simple UI: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/ http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/ Here is the same software, but with a "cluttered" UI: http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml It is entirely possible to make simple things simple while adding rich complexity for advanced users. It does, however, take more forethought and planning during development.

claudius 14y ago
I rather understood the original link to offer that dichotomy in the last sentence of the third paragraph: ‘Taking away features can be so much harder than adding features, but subtracting often creates the most value for your users.’. But, yes, your example is exactly what _should_ be done, but is often much harder to do than to ‘simply’ reduce everything to the simple UI.