Slashdot Mirror
Why Do GUI's Look the Same?
MaxVlast asks: "I was browsing around Helix Code's site looking at their interpretation of GNOME when I found the program that they claim is 'the next step forward in GNOME applications,' Evolution. I was startled and upset--this program is, from what I can tell, a direct transfer of MS Outlook to Linux. It's bothered me for some time that the two major file and desktop managers for Linux are all clamoring to look more like Windows than their competitors, and in the scuffle, are missing some very effective paradigms (like Miller columns). Do people think it is good that Linux seems to be shooting for the 'looks like Windows, but without all the features' market? The popularly available apps seem to say so." Please pause for a moment before saying "But you've done this already!". Before the question was "Do new GUIs exist?", the answer to that was a resounding yes, but now the question is "Why do our applications still look the same?", even across platform boundaries and for two different applications?
Why does Evolution have to look like Microsoft Office? I'll buy the form-follows-function argument to an extent, but there are other alternatives to things like the standard menu/button bar and other GUI elements that could be applied to applications and at the very least, give users more choice in how they operate. Are there any projects looking to bring other not-often-seen UI elements like pie-menus and the previously mentioned Miller Columns [?] to our applications?
I've noticed that MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express behave quite differently in many aspects ranging from featureset to HOW individual features work, even when they share the same feature.
Case in point: How they differ in handling opening messages. Outlook will keep each subsequent opened message maximized after the first one was, whereas Outlook Express doesn't seem to be able to remember such a simple thing, even after several major revisions. Amazing innovation there, eh?
Whether Linux/BSD apps wind up 'looking' the same as Windows apps is not as important as the question, "Will they WORK better than Windows apps?" Even aside from the feature-set, do things make sense? Are they consistent? Are options located in the menu pull-down common sense would suggest, or in the Microsoft 'innovative' way?
I love many of the features of Outlook, but hate how inconsistent many things are, and some of the simple lacks are quite astounding. I don't even use probably more than a third of the features it has, either, and I run into things all the time that bug me about it, which I cannot change. Simple things like automatically moving a particular account's email into a specific folder. Outlook _Express_ has had that feature for a VERY long time (since it's first version, perhaps), yet the supposedly more-robust product, Outlook, does not. WTF?! People say MS is good at code reuse, but you certainly can't tell it from Outlook and Outlook express. Maybe they share crappy HTML renderers, but certainly not many other basic things.
I have high hopes for Evolution and other upcoming email clients on Linux/BSD, simply for the fact that those platforms encourage software that is much more configurable than your average Windows app - Choice is Good, and is pervasive on those platforms.
I think many of the 'look' parts of most Windows apps have been shown to have good usability (the looks of the widget set in particular), and I'd like to see all the GOOD stuff brought over to Linux/*BSD for sure. In particular, I'd love to see that completely STUPID diamond-shaped radio button go the hell away - it's terrible from a usability standpoint. The round one from the Windows world (or wherever it originated) is great, and MUCH easier to determine the state of than the diamond one.
The HTML-as-application-interface idea is, IMO, quite horrible as it's so incredibly slow. It's slow in MS Internet Explorer, it's slow on Mozilla, it's slow on MS's new MediaPlayer (in fact, there's it's AMAZINGLY slow). It's just slow. I don't understand why those developers don't notice it. I'm on a 400MHz machine with 128Meg of RAM and a nice video card, and it's still friggin' slow. "Long live Galeon!" is what I say.
I originally thought the whole XUL thing in Mozilla was a great idea until I experienced it's speed. Or lack thereof. I know there are supposed to be speed enhancements coming up in a few more milestones, but I dunno - if it's THAT slow now, I'm not sure how much faster it could get - I'm quite doubtful it can get up to the speed where I wouldn't notice the difference between it and a regular app, and that's the speed I want. Extensive customization is _fantastic_ in a UI, but not if it comes at such a heavy speed penalty.
I think I measure the sophistication of a good GUI in these areas: extent of customizability, consistency, features, speed and usability. You can skimp on a few of them to some degree, but you need to make it a pretty well-rounded experience if you want to succeed. I'd say features and usability are typically the things that fall by the wayside in most GUIs, and features come in over time (and usability usually goes away over time - see also: Photoshop - too many features in a UI that was never designed to handle that many). With customizability often comes speed-dehancements, it seems, and with many features comes degradation of consistency, unless you're willing to restart your UI from the ground up when it becomes necessary. Photoshop could _certainly_ use that!
Another thing would be meeting the expectations of the target platform. Again, Photoshop is a great example of bad UI design. Photoshop started out as a Mac app, and you can still, to this day, see LOTS of interface weirdness in that application on the Windows platform that you'll never see in any other Windows application. There are numerous examples of weird widgets that have VASTLY superior analogues in standard windows widgets, but you'll likely never see them in Photoshop, I bet. Easy cross platform development is nice, but it should _NEVER_ get in the way of a good and consistent UI. EVER.
Okay, enough ranting for one night.