Slashdot Mirror

I'm sorry, but I don't like my file manager forcing me to change the way I browse ('should' have a shallow directory structure, 'shouldn't' nest folders too deep, etc.). I think the spatial paradigm is pretty cool, but it should be an easily-disabled option.

As for the screen clutter, sure you can close the containing folder when opening a subfolder etc. with non-obvious keyboard shortcuts, but I shouldn't have to RTFM to get rid of simple annoyances like that!

'Real-life interfaces' are generally a bad idea. The vast majority of people have cluttered desks in which stuff is impossible to find quickly. Review the Interface Hall of Shame's critique of 'real-life' inspired UIs (IBM RealCD and RealPhone, Apple QuickTime Player 4). They're quite thorough and brutal. Computers are not for the purpose of merely representing real-life objects electronically; they are there to aid us in improving productivity over 'real life' methods.

I'm sorry, but I don't like my file manager forcing me to change the way I browse ('should' have a shallow directory structure, 'shouldn't' nest folders too deep, etc.). I think the spatial paradigm is pretty cool, but it should be an easily-disabled option.

As for the screen clutter, sure you can close the containing folder when opening a subfolder etc. with non-obvious keyboard shortcuts, but I shouldn't have to RTFM to get rid of simple annoyances like that!

'Real-life interfaces' are generally a bad idea. The vast majority of people have cluttered desks in which stuff is impossible to find quickly. Review the Interface Hall of Shame's critique of 'real-life' inspired UIs (IBM RealCD and RealPhone, Apple QuickTime Player 4). They're quite thorough and brutal. Computers are not for the purpose of merely representing real-life objects electronically; they are there to aid us in improving productivity over 'real life' methods.

I'm sorry, but I don't like my file manager forcing me to change the way I browse ('should' have a shallow directory structure, 'shouldn't' nest folders too deep, etc.). I think the spatial paradigm is pretty cool, but it should be an easily-disabled option.

As for the screen clutter, sure you can close the containing folder when opening a subfolder etc. with non-obvious keyboard shortcuts, but I shouldn't have to RTFM to get rid of simple annoyances like that!

'Real-life interfaces' are generally a bad idea. The vast majority of people have cluttered desks in which stuff is impossible to find quickly. Review the Interface Hall of Shame's critique of 'real-life' inspired UIs (IBM RealCD and RealPhone, Apple QuickTime Player 4). They're quite thorough and brutal. Computers are not for the purpose of merely representing real-life objects electronically; they are there to aid us in improving productivity over 'real life' methods.

See, that kind of inventing metaphors for supposedly retarded users is precisely one of the problems with this industry.

Well, you are very close to having a point. But not quite.

• Human/computer interface design is all about metaphors. A mouse cursor, a window, a clickable hyperlink etc. are all metaphors (resp. for command I/O, multitasking and a "World Wide Web" that actually doesn't have wires, either). Consider the alternative (command-line everywhere, full-screen text, BBSes one had to write down the phone number for).
• I was talking about security, not useability. Computer security is rocket science right now and is in dire need of convenient metaphors if users from the general public are to cooperate (which they must - witness the "Don't open those attachments!" injunction). Do you really expect all users to manually perform the dance of exchanging a session key (unique per MAC address, for scalable revocation, and 128-bit long, for security) with the wireless access point using their keyboard and a LED display on the a.p. (to prevent man-in-the-middle)?
• Exactly what in my post gave you the "snotty" impression that I consider users=idiots? Metaphors are great for all kinds of homo sapiens (including myself), because it allows one to operate a well-engineered GUI (e.g. Excel® - a good piece of software from Microsoft® if ever there was one) and discover how it works as one goes, without ever needing to RTFM. Worth a lot of time and money.

"what if someone walks through my invisible wire?"

The same thing as if someone walks through your remote's infrared beam. Physical circumstances are not the same of course (messing with 802.11 requires a microwave or a grotty old electric shaver, maybe), but this doesn't cause the metaphor to fall short. And even if it did, that would not be so much of a problem.

I was not trying to single you out; I just noticed yours first :)

As a birthday present I recently received a copy of Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots and Leaves, a punctuation guide I found to be almost hysterically funny.

As engineers, programmers and other professionals that deal with the unforgiving literalism of computers and other modern technology, I am continually amazed at our inattentiveness to detial with regard to writing. Seems to me that we would pride ourselves on thoughtful, well-written and precise language.

Then again, we also are the ones that come up with jewels like "PC Load Letter" and these other messages.

I was not trying to single you out; I just noticed yours first :)

As a birthday present I recently received a copy of Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots and Leaves, a punctuation guide I found to be almost hysterically funny.

As engineers, programmers and other professionals that deal with the unforgiving literalism of computers and other modern technology, I am continually amazed at our inattentiveness to detial with regard to writing. Seems to me that we would pride ourselves on thoughtful, well-written and precise language.

Then again, we also are the ones that come up with jewels like "PC Load Letter" and these other messages.

Actually, Sony did make an LP Walkman. It was the original Discman, released in about 1983. I've never seen one in person; they didn't catch on for obvious reasons of practicality. Nor could I find any references to it anywhere online, but it was featured in the Gadget section of Hands-On Electronics magazine at the time - I think I'll have to scan the article and put it online. The Sony model looked like a large 80's-styled plastic C-clamp. It came with a belt clip (presumably only for carrying it to your listening spot, since having a whirring record on your hip would be ...problematic), and it took a 33RPM LP. I don't know what you'd use it for - back when I was a kid, libraries would lend LPs, maybe for listening in the library?

Others did make similar things but mostly in slot-load format - check out these pictures of one which was only capable of 45RPM singles.

Yes, I know. It's asinine. But they did make 'em.

Actually, Sony did make an LP Walkman. It was the original Discman, released in about 1983. I've never seen one in person; they didn't catch on for obvious reasons of practicality. Nor could I find any references to it anywhere online, but it was featured in the Gadget section of Hands-On Electronics magazine at the time - I think I'll have to scan the article and put it online. The Sony model looked like a large 80's-styled plastic C-clamp. It came with a belt clip (presumably only for carrying it to your listening spot, since having a whirring record on your hip would be ...problematic), and it took a 33RPM LP. I don't know what you'd use it for - back when I was a kid, libraries would lend LPs, maybe for listening in the library?

Others did make similar things but mostly in slot-load format - check out these pictures of one which was only capable of 45RPM singles.

Yes, I know. It's asinine. But they did make 'em.

I quote from the Interface Hall of Shame:
Toolbar buttons are intended to provide single click access to frequently used menu items.

So why put a menu in a menu replacement?

Also remember that it was originally a Mac app, and Adobe initially had to win those users over to the Windows version, so maintaining interface consistency across platforms was arguably more important to them than respecting inadequate Windows customs.

And I could say the GIMP is maintaining UI consistency with the Linux version. Yet this Mac user wants a GIMP that behaves like a real Mac app. So why cannot I, as a Windows user, expect Photoshop for Windows to behave like a real Windows app?

When I was talking about the brain not being hard-coded to recognize or prefer certain UI elements, I should have clarified it by saying "at the high-level". Sure, as you say, there are parts of the visual cortex that detect edges and motion etc. The edge information is used to recognize features and objects. Our binocular vision can place objects in 3D space, and along with the motion information can give fairly accurate estimates of an objects motion in 3D space.

Our GUI designs are probably more an evolution of designs from paper (e.g books, magazines, posters, flyers, resaurant menus, written notes). Apart from buttons, most attempts to use real-world physical objects as GUI elements are just bad ideas.

• Window - like a piece of paper.
• Menu bars, pop-up/down menus - items on a menu or itemized list?
• Tabs - the use of bookmarks, tabs, and even scooped-out finger-holds (?) have been used in books for a while.
• Scroll bars - a bit of a stretch, but public decrees and such used to be read from scrolls. That was probably back when paper was made from animal skin. Now we mass-produce it from chewed up trees and sheets are just more practical.

Your idea of using a fog effect on background windows is interesting. I don't like these ideas to make a "3D desktop" but something simple like that could maybe help. And thanks to 3D gaming, graphics cards have developed some formidable texturing abilities over the last 7-8 years. It's certainly do-able.

When I was talking about the brain not being hard-coded to recognize or prefer certain UI elements, I should have clarified it by saying "at the high-level". Sure, as you say, there are parts of the visual cortex that detect edges and motion etc. The edge information is used to recognize features and objects. Our binocular vision can place objects in 3D space, and along with the motion information can give fairly accurate estimates of an objects motion in 3D space.

Our GUI designs are probably more an evolution of designs from paper (e.g books, magazines, posters, flyers, resaurant menus, written notes). Apart from buttons, most attempts to use real-world physical objects as GUI elements are just bad ideas.

• Window - like a piece of paper.
• Menu bars, pop-up/down menus - items on a menu or itemized list?
• Tabs - the use of bookmarks, tabs, and even scooped-out finger-holds (?) have been used in books for a while.
• Scroll bars - a bit of a stretch, but public decrees and such used to be read from scrolls. That was probably back when paper was made from animal skin. Now we mass-produce it from chewed up trees and sheets are just more practical.

Your idea of using a fog effect on background windows is interesting. I don't like these ideas to make a "3D desktop" but something simple like that could maybe help. And thanks to 3D gaming, graphics cards have developed some formidable texturing abilities over the last 7-8 years. It's certainly do-able.

Indeed not, as you can see here or here.

Chris Mattern

They tried. 3dFX bet the farm on their t-buffer hardware, pointing out that 30 frames-per-second, rendered to include motion blur and what not, would provide better (or, more-film-like, which is the same thing to most people) image quality than rendering 100 static frames per second would.

The Consumer Public, however, voted with their wallets, and opted for raw frame rate, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I would like to refer you to the Interface Hall of Shame. Please read an interfacq critique or two, and reconsider just slapping those buttons in.

You thought that "looking nice with your furniture" was more important than the spec of the system, or the OS it ran.

Yes--why is that so difficult to understand? If you have a machine in your living room, wouldn't you like it to look nice? Oh, I see, you probably don't really have a living room.

You were so taken with how much they matched your furniture that you bought 3 of them before you realised that you didn't like Mac OS.

No, I realized that after the first one. But, hard as that may be for you to comprehend, sometimes people buy machines because they need to get work done, and if that work happens to involve MacOS, then they buy a Macintosh, whether they like the OS or not. You know, just like lots of people buy Windows machines even though they don't like them. You, as a Mac zealot, should be able to relate to that, since Mac users often complain about having to use Windows machines.

Fortunately, after one is through using them for their work-related purpose, one can install Linux on both Macs and Windows machines, which makes me really happy.

"It just works" is about useability,

You mean like QuickTime? Or dragging volumes into the trash in order to unmount them? Or replacing a three button mouse with Apple-Option-click combos? Or the Top Nine Reasons the Apple Dock Still Sucks? The last one was written by that anti-Mac bigot and well-known troll by the name of Bruce Tognazzini. And then there are well-known anti-Macintosh rags like MacOpinion pointing out usability problems in OS X.

Apple is paying attention to usability, but so is everybody else. Apple doesn't have any magic solutions, and their products have the same kinds of problems that all other operating systems and GUIs have. They just make theirs look prettier and pretend they aren't there.

That doesn't make their machines bad, it just makes them not as good as Apple likes to claim.

Anyway, we both know full well that you're trolling.

No, the trolls are people like you who post to discussions about Linux that people should just use OS X instead because it "just works".

And when someone like me says that Apples are pretty nice, but that Apple, like everybody else has usability problems, you throw hissy fits.

don't forget that there's an entire section devoted to Quicktime

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

Take a look at the User interface hall of shame. It has tons of examples with screenshots and explanations of what is wrong in several categories:

• selecting the wrong control
• interrupt the user
• difficult to read
• improper use color
• unfamiliar terminology
• innappropriate error messages
• tabbed dialogs gone bad
• metaphors taken too far
• internationalization problems
• in-depth look at really bad applications

"Appfolders system?" WTF?

"Appfolders" refers to how Mac OS X implements bundles at the file system level: as folders. Classic Mac OS implemented them as "resource forks," faux-filesystems-within-a-file that the Finder(tm) file manager ensured traveled along with the "data fork" containing the executable code.

There are times, however, when you want to install something that's not an application. QuickTime, for instance, or the developer tools. In those rare instances, you need to install a package.

Except that there are an excrement-load of "developer tools" available from third parties, and if Apple wants an operating system to be useful to developers, its packaging system should be useful to developers who may have dozens of different tools installed.

[Human interface style guides are a] set of recommendations you should follow unless you've got a good reason not to. And, yeah, sometimes "it looks cool" is a sufficiently good reason. (Programmer laziness, on the other hand, is not.)

"It looks cool" seldom if ever justifies counterintuitive interfaces. For example, one version of the QuickTime player used a faux thumbwheel interface to control volume rather than the tried-and-true slider used in every other version and made controls look disabled, among other glaring errors. Read more at Interface Hall of Shame: QuickTime Player.

You can connect an Ericsson keyboard to your GBA, or you can use K+ joypad-based input.

DanTE Advance.

Simulating real-world devices to make computers more usable is a common idea, but not a very good one. Physical devices have lots of limitations and painful user interfaces (sometimes literally). Have a look at IBM's attempt at this. Some of the best attempts at using 3D as part of regular user interfaces probably come from these people; you can judge for yourself whether their user interfaces are useful.

These kinds of attempts at general-purpose 3D user interfaces have the smell of failure--companies desparately trying to look "hip" and "modern", but without anything real to show for it. To me, it's an indication how far behind Sun really is. Good user interfaces should be unsurprising, simple, fast, and use the medium they are presented on well. In the case of computers, that's a 2D, low-resolution, high color depth screen. Design for the medium.

Snoopy's Sopwith Camel doesn't look like it is set up well enough to survive re-entry.

More fun : Interface Hall of Shame

Consider:

• The main point of a file selector is to choose a file. In the mock-up, only 22% of the dialog's space actually shows files compared to XP where 60% of the space is used for files. And honestly, a lot of the 22% is wasted in the GTK mockup. Defaulting to 'list' instead of 'small icons' doesn't help.
• There is lots of empty space next to the cancel/open buttons and 'send to' checkbox that is just wasted (see XP for how to do it right and still look appealing).
• Having 'Show All Files' button next to the filename field means there is less space to see the filename or type in a path into that field.
• the 'up' button is located about as far away from the files as possible, ensuring lots of extra mouse movement. There is no 'back' button.
• The 'shortcuts' list takes up lots of space and looks terrible when shortcuts with short and longs names are mixed, like in the example. Please tell me it doesn't resize with the window!

I use gnome instead of kde (on gentoo) but the lack of any UI sense is frustrating. Another example: the gnome-panel buttons grow to be unbelievably large if there are only a few windows open. This just looks terrible and combined with the layout problems make it nearly impossible to have a vertical or expanding bar that doesn't just look disgusting.

I really think linux is set to take off on the desktop this year, but these usability/aesthetic details can really have a large negative impact.

>But then what is working for you these days?

Winamp, MS office, you know, the usual.

Wait... is iTunes bigger than MS Office? YIKES!

Of course, then again, we all know how shitty the Quicktime interface is...

(Yes, I know that's for QT 4.0. I've carefully checked it over. The review is still 75% correct. So... it's 25% less bad than before. Wow. Big deal.)

Ok, it all looks very pretty. But when the guy brought up the 3D "CD database", am I the only one that thought of the Interface Hall of Shame? They have three pages on interfaces that try to look like real things - The horrible QuickTime player, and IBM's RealPhone and RealCD applications. The underlying criticism is that interfaces that try to look and act like real things often don't work very well on a computer screen. Look at the apps on your computer desktop. Does your web browser look like some real applicance? Or your email reader? File manager? No, they probably don't. They have some similar widgets, like buttons or tabs. But other things like drop-down menus or scroll-bars don't have real-world cousins. It's a mish-mash that has evolved over the last 20-odd years of GUI design.

The problem I have with their 3D desktop is I bet they'll try to "reinvent" the interface by imitating real-life appliances and devices. And guess what, it's different using a real-life device with your hands from operating a virtual device with a mouse and 1, 2, or 3 buttons. Things like thumb-wheels aren't so easy to use with a mouse (forgetting the actual wheel on modern mice), just look at the QuickTime player example. And it's not always obvious what is a widget, and what is simply decoration.

Or they might do it correct from the start, what do I know. In the video the guy talks about a community of some sort. So maybe they'll rely on third-party programmers more.

Ok, it all looks very pretty. But when the guy brought up the 3D "CD database", am I the only one that thought of the Interface Hall of Shame? They have three pages on interfaces that try to look like real things - The horrible QuickTime player, and IBM's RealPhone and RealCD applications. The underlying criticism is that interfaces that try to look and act like real things often don't work very well on a computer screen. Look at the apps on your computer desktop. Does your web browser look like some real applicance? Or your email reader? File manager? No, they probably don't. They have some similar widgets, like buttons or tabs. But other things like drop-down menus or scroll-bars don't have real-world cousins. It's a mish-mash that has evolved over the last 20-odd years of GUI design.

The problem I have with their 3D desktop is I bet they'll try to "reinvent" the interface by imitating real-life appliances and devices. And guess what, it's different using a real-life device with your hands from operating a virtual device with a mouse and 1, 2, or 3 buttons. Things like thumb-wheels aren't so easy to use with a mouse (forgetting the actual wheel on modern mice), just look at the QuickTime player example. And it's not always obvious what is a widget, and what is simply decoration.

Or they might do it correct from the start, what do I know. In the video the guy talks about a community of some sort. So maybe they'll rely on third-party programmers more.

Ok, it all looks very pretty. But when the guy brought up the 3D "CD database", am I the only one that thought of the Interface Hall of Shame? They have three pages on interfaces that try to look like real things - The horrible QuickTime player, and IBM's RealPhone and RealCD applications. The underlying criticism is that interfaces that try to look and act like real things often don't work very well on a computer screen. Look at the apps on your computer desktop. Does your web browser look like some real applicance? Or your email reader? File manager? No, they probably don't. They have some similar widgets, like buttons or tabs. But other things like drop-down menus or scroll-bars don't have real-world cousins. It's a mish-mash that has evolved over the last 20-odd years of GUI design.

The problem I have with their 3D desktop is I bet they'll try to "reinvent" the interface by imitating real-life appliances and devices. And guess what, it's different using a real-life device with your hands from operating a virtual device with a mouse and 1, 2, or 3 buttons. Things like thumb-wheels aren't so easy to use with a mouse (forgetting the actual wheel on modern mice), just look at the QuickTime player example. And it's not always obvious what is a widget, and what is simply decoration.

Or they might do it correct from the start, what do I know. In the video the guy talks about a community of some sort. So maybe they'll rely on third-party programmers more.

Ok, it all looks very pretty. But when the guy brought up the 3D "CD database", am I the only one that thought of the Interface Hall of Shame? They have three pages on interfaces that try to look like real things - The horrible QuickTime player, and IBM's RealPhone and RealCD applications. The underlying criticism is that interfaces that try to look and act like real things often don't work very well on a computer screen. Look at the apps on your computer desktop. Does your web browser look like some real applicance? Or your email reader? File manager? No, they probably don't. They have some similar widgets, like buttons or tabs. But other things like drop-down menus or scroll-bars don't have real-world cousins. It's a mish-mash that has evolved over the last 20-odd years of GUI design.

The problem I have with their 3D desktop is I bet they'll try to "reinvent" the interface by imitating real-life appliances and devices. And guess what, it's different using a real-life device with your hands from operating a virtual device with a mouse and 1, 2, or 3 buttons. Things like thumb-wheels aren't so easy to use with a mouse (forgetting the actual wheel on modern mice), just look at the QuickTime player example. And it's not always obvious what is a widget, and what is simply decoration.

Or they might do it correct from the start, what do I know. In the video the guy talks about a community of some sort. So maybe they'll rely on third-party programmers more.

"Score:2, Funny"? For shame, moderators -- that was "+5 Informative", if I've ever seen it.

So how bad is Lotus Notes, you ask? So bad that The User Interface Hall Of Shame dedicated an ENTIRE PAGE to detailing LN's faults. "This single application could have formed the basis for the entire site."

Yes, it's that bad.

Well, isnt that nice. He's certainly no Divinci is he?

Hate to burst your bubble, but Leonardo da Vinci also invented war machines.

P.S. You can bite my shinny metal...

>At least it's an attractive interface, as opposed to Real's jumble'o'buttons...

LOL!

Emergence basically means that we can't predict ahead of time what will happen, we have to 'see it through all the way'. Many higher-level processes in the universe are emergent phenomena (life, for one thing), which is one of the reasons why we'll never be able to predict the future.

So if you're trying to prove a mathematical theorem, I might agree that brute force could make you lazy (I'm a computer scientist though - so probably not :-), but in this case, there's no other way.

Here is a great site that explains everything there is to know about UI's and gives real world (you use them every day) examples of "how not to"... It's dated, but it's very, very good... I recomend reading the Lotus Notes special page if you've ever used Lotus Notes - It's a Classic!!

http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Enginee ring/iarchitect/qtime.htm

QuickTime is a lost cause. Apple has invested millions of dollars in sabotaging their own product. Use QuickTime at your own peril, only if you're as self destructive as Apple.

-Don

Pity the player is such a sorry mess. You could hope that after being extensively featured in UI Hall of Shame the developers would put at least a little effort into improving it.

Now I'm back on the side of Eolas. No matter what I feel about Microsoft or software patents, I can't stand Lotus Notes! (I used to work at IBM in the database division, but whenever anyone did anything with "databases" it was always some crappy Notes application.)

The UI of Notes is so bad it got its own section in the Interface Hall of Shame.

Yes, re-entry with a capsule is completly safe.

Yes, re-entry with a capsule is completly safe.

At work I'm forced to use Lotus Notes 4.5.5 (yup, the 1995 version).
I do not like its interface, its menu structure and generally the way it works. (see the interface hall of shame for details on that)
However, it has some excellent search features built in (fast & reliable) and my only favorite option: the "All documents" folder, where all records are piled onto one big pile for me to search in. Really handy. So I can make folders and organise, but if I want I can just pretend there's only this one big folder.