2 ms·
Yeah, emacs and vim would never have gotten where they are if it weren't for their simple, intuitive interfaces. The Simple UI camp is wrong: It's not complexi
by thunk 17y ago
Yeah, emacs and vim would never have gotten where they are if it weren't for their simple, intuitive interfaces.
The Simple UI camp is wrong: It's not complexity you want to minimize in a UI -- muscle memory will take care of that -- it's time and exertion.
Reminds me of:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revol...
- cschneid 17y agoI disagree in a large part due to different use cases. Developers often "live" in their editor, using it all day. Because of that, a non-obvious interface is ok, if the benefit is faster processing. The same reasoning applies to the old school text interfaces for insurance agents. They can fly through it and get you a quote very quickly. But, I know that I don't use my time tracker application often enough to allow it to become super cluttered and non-obvious. Same with my bank's website. Different use models require different approaches to usability.