Slashdot Mirror
Complex GUI Architecture Discussion?
XNuke asks: "I have been searching for intelligent discussion (on dead trees or otherwise) of the issues involved in designing very complex GUIs. Things on the level of TecPlot, AutoCad, 3DS, etc, where there may be very many different views of the same data and there are many degrees of freedom for the user. I am not interested in 'where to put the buttons', but rather the nuts and bolts of making the 'Well Designed UI' work. I guess I am looking for a sort of 'Design Patterns applied to a big deskptop application' sort of discussion. It is no problem to find discussions of Model-View-Controller concepts at the component level, but at the application level there seems to be nothing. Too often the architectural level discussions encompass non-interactive, server side design issues and not the extremely chaotic problems a client side application with many degrees of freedom has. Short of wading through megabytes of source code for KWord et. al., does anyone know of any digested information? There is obviously no 'One Solution' to this, but there must be something out there."
C:>
I've liked The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems, written by Jef Raskin. He was one of the early Mac engineers. This maybe a little higher-level than you are looking for though.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Use self-organizing maps for clustering.
These work well with the visualization needs that you and your group have as well for the upcoming project; search the Web for the Kohonen learning algorithm and apply a simple summation over each term in the respective vector, remembering to square each quantity as well.
This way, the topological view of your program's user interface will be well-refined, easy to navigate, and of a very high resolution (for CRTs, at least -- LCD monitors refresh too quickly and you may get relics [blurs] from high-oscillating models).
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3H 3J5
So you wrote into Slashdot expecting that? Please!
Here at CMU they have a whole school in the school of computer science to deal with this issue. Check them out at http://www.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/ .
They seem to have a bunch of projects relating to what you are doing here
Good luck,
--Alex
One common theme I've seen is observers and adapters. Your application components can be Observable. Observers register interest in them to get notified when the object changes. One problem of this approach is specifying the extent of a change. Just saying "I've changed!" isn't specific enough if that update would take a long time to process. If you can specify exactly what changed, then the Observers can process only what has changed.
Adapters allow standard UI controls to embed domain objects without either layer knowing about the other. For example, say you want a tree to list Employee objects. The tree does not understand what an Employee is. However, you can make a tree that takes a TreeAdapter object that knows how to provde its name, subitems, handles renaming and drag-n-drop, etc. You can then make an EmployeeAdapter subclass of TreeAdapter that wraps an Employee and knows how to make a tree node out of it. If the EmployeeAdapter observes the Employee, it can handle changes to the Employee object.
Find a good model and see where your needs diverge. When we started on a project like this, the UI was a mess until we based the initial design on an existing piece of software where the user interactions were similar in nature (e.g. office productivity app, multiple views of data = MS Outlook). So if your app has similarities to AutoCad, Photoshop, or any other commercially successful UI, use it as a starting reference model for your UI, and see where the needs of your users diverge from the UI model that app presents. To do this you need to generate typical usage cases, and rank them in terms of how often they will be performed, and make sure those operations are obvious and easy to perform. The other advantage to this approach is users will appreciate that it works just like "software app X" and won't need much additional training.
...try "Constructing the User Interface with Statecharts" by Ian Horrocks. If the complexity you are dealing with is logic complexity rather than "...put the buttons here" then this methodological approach to UI/application state design may interest you.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
... especially if it is a very complex application that exists to do a single logically coherent - but complex - task. Instead of trying to fit into a WIMP/Menu/Command line paradigm, think of yourself building a control panel for the action. Look at information on industrial designs. But for God's sakes don't look at GUI guidelines for the platform you're building it for. The main argument for this is that you then have to train the user in your GUI. But, if the task is complex enough to need a complex interface, it's complex enough to require training to use. Finally, link the panel to conceptual actions, events, or information in the conceptual task space.
That is all.
Welcome to slashdot.google.com!
Too lazy to do a search yourself?
Just have a thousand geeks search for you!
Or you could adapt a currently-existing user interface so that it allows for a rating of user intelligence, based on a simple scale.
Assign points over time (which can be done since modern computers have sequential ability, rather than just a set of combinational logic gates).
Why not attempt (or adapt) the following measure? --
User Ability: {Charisma + Determination + Discipline + Raw Intelligence + Logic + Wisdom)/[ln(Pi*timeSinceInitialInstall)]}
Develop a few simple tests and embed them into some questions (perhaps an inital registration script that loads upon first run) to find each value, and then run the numbers based on the above equation.
Or just have a grad student do it for you!
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3H 3J5
I'm amazed sometimes on how easily a GUI is considered trivial or non-critical.
For redundancy or performance reasons you want to have the same business rules executed on the GUI as well as verified on the server. The work required to set a trigger on the database is not the same for representing that on the GUI to the user. The amount of detail that goes on interactively with the user could hardly be managed directly by a server. Because of these I agree that more patterns besides the model-view-controler are needed.
Currently I am on a project where a 'web' form takes 20 days to build but the store procedures that manage the data take 2 or 3 days.
Actually, Google's interface is one of the best examples of design and functionality going.Check out their cleanly laid out News area.Beats CNN, etc.
That's got to have had something to do with its' universal appeal
iJesus God, please don't look to Emacs and vi for insight into good UI design.^[ZZ^J
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
MVC is the pattern at a high level. There are generalized approaches which you mention in your question. The "complicated" UIs you are talking about - for graphics programs etc. are geared towards the sophisticated, committed and very busy professional who is using a vast number of tools and techniques to get their job done. A well designed interface of this type uses the "Direct Manipulation" approach on top of a large complex model (see Visio).
/., many others).
Other common approaches are essentially Use Case driven and can be very directed (see Installshield). Or more generalized (see phpAdmin,
Also people are VERY particular about the kind of interaction they like for a given set of tasks. When I design a UI I use MVC (or more usually M VC) and map out my UCs very carefully and in a fair amount of detail. Then I do prototyping to prove the design/UCs (often the users cannot give a good description of what they want until they are sitting down and using something).
I really like the book "The Humane Interface" from Jef RAskin.
I found it on amazon where one reader stated that "Once you read this book you will know why you have the programs you hate." He is right... I absolutly loath vi now (not that emacs is that much better of going after Raskin;-).
Regards, Tobias
He would call what you are talking about "interaction design" not "interface design". The Inmates book makes a good case for how the two are different and why interaction design is a better approach.
it must be something that we ate.
Whenever you are visually representing data, and providing a means by which to manipulate the representation, consistency is paramount. If you have three object types: A, B, C that are represented in the same visual space, an action on A should have an equivalent effect if taken on B or C.
This was the primary concern we had when I was working on Vegas Video. At first, we treated audio and video differently, thinking that different media types would require different interfaces, but we quickly realized that most actions for one media type had a corresponding action for the other (i.e. Fade out). When a coherent interface element did not exist, we extended the user interface for the given media type. We never allowed an interface element to exhibit different behaviors for different media types.
Of course, Vegas Video is not the end-all of user interfaces, but I learned a lot about simplicity and consistence in interface design.
It's the difference between a complex application and a powerful one.
Emacs
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Looking for Design Patterns for complex interactive applications with multiple views? Take a look at the thesis work of John Vlissides, one of the Gang of Four: http://www.ivtools.org/ivtools/unidrawinfo.html
I've seen about 50 comments so far and all think the question is about User Interface design in terms of "Human Factors" as you mention. While Human Factors (and the book you mention) is important this is not what the poster is asking.
The poster is asking about software archecture and design patterns. Think of it this way: Okay I want to code a new IDE, but I want to code it well. So what's the best way to get the UI to talk to the code that actually compiles the source code. Or another example: a database management suite. How do I best seperate the UI code from the code that actually talks to the database. And once I have them in seperate modules, how do I get them to talk to each other? This is a question about computer software design, not UI design (although, UI design is very important). The advantage to thinking this way though, is that when software is coded this way, people who do understand "Human Factors" and proper User Interface Guidelines can tweek and adjust the UI without modifying the underlying code that performs the logic of the application.
The Model-View-Controller design pattern mentioned is a good start, although I'm not sure how well it scales to larger, more complex programs. (I'd love to hear from someone who has experience in this.) And of course the "Design Patterns" book by the 'Gang of Four' has other designs that might be more appropriate. Also, most complex applications will incorporate multiple design patterns.
This is a very interesting question, one I've had before and I haven't found any good resources yet either. Perhaps the best resource would be to actually go through the code of a complex program like Mozilla, OpenOffice, or the like. Fun? Easy? Probably not, but you'd learn a lot.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I think part of the reason such discussions seem to be lacking out there is that each GUI toolkit has its own way of conceiving of event-based GUI interaction, and separating the presentation of a GUI element from the logic that handles it. Thus there is no real standard set of design patterns for GUI implementation (there are tons of sites I found using Google on GUI "Design Patterns" which are basically just HCI best practices for communicating certain kinds of concepts). For example, Qt uses the signal-slot mechanism. wxWindows uses EVT_ macros to associate an event with an action method. These encourage different ways of structuring GUI code.
I am not saying it's impossible to come up with a set of rules of thumb for general GUI development and implementation in the same way that general design patterns for OO development exist to solve certain kinds of problems that are commonly encountered, but I'm doubtful they would be as useful as you would think.
(If you have access to a university library, you can find those proceedings there as well)
You mention MVC. This is a very useful abstraction, but you're right in saying that it doesn't address the larger question of application architecture. One kind of global abstraction that seems to help for large interfaces is some kind of messaging system. For example, you can use a global queue of update events (sent by Models when things change) which all interested Views can lsiten to, and react accordingly.
Some real problems come when you want views to react to changes so some other view (but NOT the underlying model data). e.g. changing from 2d to 3d display, you might want various menus to appear, disappear, or have entires change/gray-out. This breaks down the MVC abstraction to varying degrees.
At the end of it all, I also haven't seen much in the literature on architectures for large GUI apps. I think this is because very few of them are really ever produced. Most apps you see are, at the base of it all, fairly simple, and require only one or two views with pretty straightforward control architecture.
"I'd recommend starting with Norman's The design of every day things...."
I wish the Slashdot coders had read that book. I got my butt jumped because I used ['s to encapsulate a bold tag instead of the typical HTML greater-than signs. According to some, my being used to VBulletin syntax (used by several forums I vist) is a sign of how truely stupid I am. I think it's a sign of how unfriendly Slashdot's interface can be.
It's not a poke at Slashdot, but rather an observation that book helped me make about UI. Slashdot's just a handy example. Now, when I write web pages, I have a better perspective of the things I should do to prevent mistakes like the bracket example from being irrecoverable.
Anybody who's interested in design should read that book, it helps you understand why humans make the mistakes they do and what you can do to accommodate them. Hint: It's not because we're all too stupid to read a manual.
Read his F'ing post man: "I am not interested in 'where to put the buttons', but rather the nuts and bolts..." [Do you moderators even read the posts carefully?]
He doesn't want fluffy designer stuff. He wants to implement a complex U/I with multiple views on the same data. Designing the interface is trivial. Implementing it is the problem. His question has no obvious answer other than: "just jump in; you'll get it right on the 2nd or 3rd try like the rest of us."
BTW, MVC is crap. It falls down for much smaller problems than what you're looking at.
They also vary the theme between aqua and brushed metal seemingly at random in their apps collection. This goes flat against their own HIG.
If you would read the actual Apple HIG, they say that apps which are meant to replace a real-world item/function (such as Calculator, iCal, iTunes) should be built with the brushed metal look. All other apps should use the default, untextured look. Just thinking over the apps included in OS X, it seems to me like they follow this guideline fairly closely.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
I am a designer for a CAD/CAM program that is used to control and make parts for metal cutting machines. The first thing you will need to realize that these types of application are considered vertical market applications.
Everyone has a use for a word processor but not everyone has a use for one this programs but when you do you need it bad. When you design the architecture and the UI you need to keep flexibility in mind. This is not so much for the user but for you so you can met the needs of a SPECIFIC customer. It is my experience that customers really want the vertical market software they buy to aid their current way of doing things, not to change what they are doing to meet the needs of the software.
A specific industry has a lot of common needs but there is enough variation that if you don't design flexibility in mind it will drive you crazy with tech support and lose buyers who can't get the software to do what they exactly want.
There two things you need to consider for such programs. The architecture and the UI.
I following many of the standard advice on designing UIs but here are a couple that I try to keep in my mind.
1) Keep the focus of the screen in the center of the screen. Try to add widgets to the top AND bottom to keep the screen's focus in the center. For example there was a version of my software where the sheet of metal was bumped down so that it's center was a lot further down then the center of the screen. This is bad. The next version I redesigned that screen so that the widgets were equally distributed between the top and bottom. This way the user's eyes when they move to the monitor has the sheet exactly where it is needed.
2) Work-flow, you should provide either a means via keyboard or mouse to accomplish common tasks. You can do one, the other, or both. However what you shouldn't do is mix the two. If the task has keyboard components you should try to enable the user to complete the task without moving from the keyboard. The same for tasks involve the mouse. Tasks that involve a lot of moving from mouse to keyboard leave user unhappy.
Try to have a keyboard way and mouse way to do all tasks. Sometimes it isn't possible but if it is do it.
3)Softkeys, toolbars are nice it is my experience that users respond better to text then icons. User like big fat buttons on the screen. What I come up with the idea of softkeys. If you look across the top of your keyboard it probably has 12 function key arranged in groups of 4. What I do is have eight buttons on the top or bottom of my screen split into two groups of four. The first four correspond to F1 to F4 and the second four to F5 to F8. I use F9 to F12 for special actions. F9 is generally used for "flipping" the softkeys. This give me room for 16 commands per softkey group.
On the more complicated screen I have multiple groups of softkeys. For example Zoom, Cut, Edit Path, Sketch, Rotate, etc. Each having up to 16 commands. I also provide a way to switch between the groups.
The advantage of this that the user can see exactly what they can do in front of them. They can use the mouse to click on the command or use the corresponding function keys. While I do use some toolbar buttons most of commands are accessed through the softkeys.
4) Make important tasks very easily accessible. Use single letter or buttons to tie into the task. For example Edit Cutting Parameter is a command often used in my software. So I tie it into not only a softkey but a toolbar button accessible no matter what softkey group you are in.
Architecture.
First get Design Patterns and Refactoring Software, regardless of what langauge you use they will be very useful.
The goal of Architecture is to have flexibility to meet customer needs without introducing a lot of bugs into your software because you changed something. I am not sure what to call what I use but it builds heavily on Design Patterns.
Data Structures
Application Structure
UI Interface
Commands/Installable Libraries
UI Implementation
Graphic Framework
Data Structures (Sheets, parts, etc)
Application Structure (I use an idiom of Jobs comprised of sheets with parts, with a separate Shop Standard that is refered too by all Jobs, and a list of installable libraries ).
UI Interface (nothing but Interfaces)
Commands (these use the command pattern to implement )
Installable Libraries (like reports, part creation, file types, etc)
UI Implementation (implements the UI interfaces with methods accessing commands and libraries).
Graphic Framework (Delphi, Qt, KDE, Gnome, VB Forms, etc).
The reason for UI Interface -> Commands -> UI Implementation is so that commands that just manipulate the UI (switch screens) can be written. The actual implementaion is last because the implementation needs to know what commands are available to assign to various screens and widgets.
I hope this helps
I guess I am looking for a sort of 'Design Patterns applied to a big deskptop application' sort of discussion.
Then The GOF Design Patterns may be what you're looking for. The case study used for most of the pattern illustrations is that of designing a word processor -- which is no simple feat. A lot of these can be extended to any type of a UI architecture.
-- jimmycarter
I haven't seen this URL posted yet (I thought it came from Slashdot a while ago, but I guess I was mistaken :)
Be sure you can answer all of these questions before you even start to think about GUI design. I agree with pretty much everything the guy says.
One other thing, be sure to keep to conventions wherever possible. For example, people are used to having the Exit command at the bottom of the File menu, so (unless you're doing something completely different, as you may be) don't stick it anywhere else. Little things like that make programs more intuitive.
And one other thing: make it as unlike Blender as possible :)
The hell you can't! Have you ever talked to a GUI person about the taskbar? Or the system tray? Or the start menu? Or their filesystem approach? Or the Explorer? Or their common file dialogs? Every place they've had to come up with an idea on their own (i.e., every time they couldn't copy part of Win95 from System 7) they screwed it up.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
If you would read the actual Apple HIG, they say that apps which are meant to replace a real-world item/function (such as Calculator, iCal, iTunes) should be built with the brushed metal look.
They break this numerous places: in fact, virtually everywhere.
By the definition above, *everything* should be brushed metal. Word processor replaces pencil/typewriter. Spreadsheet replaces graph paper. Sherlock replaces phonebook/dictionary. Photoshop replaces sissors/paste/darkroom.
If you try and tighten it down to obvious objects like iTunes replacing a radio, then why is iChat brushed metal? Why is iMovie brushed metal and Final Cut Pro Aqua? They do exactly the same thing!
This is one area where Apple is just out to lunch. The HI folks had nothing to do with brushed metal: it's clearly a Steve "That's cool: go with it" decision.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Seems like one possible source would be the User Interface Research Group at PARC. These are the same folks who invented the Windowing user interface.
about complex GUI's is: don't! :) I still like pov-ray because I can just enter what I want in a text editor rather than a modeler like 3D-S. Several smaller GUI's built for specific purposes would probably be better than one big GUI. Just break the GUI down into easy ways to do specific tasks. Try to have a consistancy among them. Really, this would be a great place to put object-oriented methods to use. Make consistant components that are groups of other UI elements. It's easy to do in Java using interfaces, but you can do it in C++ as well with inheritence and virtual functions, or call-back functions in C(ech!). I'm sure .Net has a sane way to do it(err, no I'm not really... they probably want you to drag components to a form and use cut and paste, but then you have to update every component to fix a bug, add font settings, etc.), but I really don't know. Any GUI architecture worth it's size in bits has some kind of control grouping whether it's OO, or just faking OO.
Karma Clown
You say you "absolutly loath vi" after having read this book. Did you like it before? Because I find vi to be an excellent editor; it lets me keep my fingers on the keyboard where they belong and gets a lot of work done with relatively few keystrokes. And if you also liked it before reading the book, I would think it's sad to change your opinion just because a book told you so.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Start by reading every book you can get your hands on about designing user interfaces for the common user.
Then burn them. In a big roaring bonfire. Okay, don't -- donate them somewhere, but pretend you burned them. Picture 'em burning in your mind.
You are not designing an interface for the common person. Those are designed to be immediately accessable, with a slow gradual learning curve, with lots of consistent easy to grasp metaphor. That is the mac, and usually they do pretty well at it. Metaphors and graduality will drive your power users insane, and you're designing an app for them.
You want something more like emacs. Or, if you're doing CAD, you want something more like AutoCAD. You want an interface with power. You want one with usability. You want consistency, you still want to keep things like Fitt's Law in mind, but by no means should you feel compelled to make the damn thing intuitive. Neither vi nor emacs are in the least bit intuitive, but boy are they usable, meaning the interface really squeezes maximum use out of itself.
If I did have to throw in one piece of pithy advice, I'd say that since you're probably going to have to implement some sort of language to express the actions of the interface in, make the API self-documenting, like emacs. I can't tell you how amazingly useful the apropos command is in emacs, how it just searches through the names and documentation of every function and every var in the system, and I don't have to rely on compiled API documentation that may or may not tell me what I need.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It's a shame the post with the correct one word answer got categorized as "funny".
Emacs is the right programming architecture for GUIs. The Emacs command set and visual appearence are, obviously, not that great for many users -- but the programming architecture is right.
By being interactively extensible, emacs makes it easy to fine tune an interface while you play with it.
By being lisp based and by having many fine abstractions, emacs let's you do a lot with very little code.
The emacs architecture provides some very fine bits and pieces for achieving excellent accessability features.
By being interactive and self-documenting, Emacs is good at helping people teach themselves to program.
View-tree toolkits, such as underlie Gnome and KDE are inflexible dogs that leaded to bloated yet feature-anemic tools. You know what they're good for? They're good if you have a command-and-control army of drone programmers who can write reams and reams of code. That's why Microsoft apps will remain far more featureful than their free competition until that competition switches to an architecture that works for a society of free individuals.
Yes, it's true: the way you structure your programs has political implications. It defines jobs. It defines the power of managers and project managers. It establishes the degrees of freedom your users have to extend or customize their tools.
I haven't found design patterns to work as well as rule-based coding.
A philosophy I build into all of my GUI applications is "show the user as much useful information as possible". Users make thousands of decisions a day and informed decisions are easier to make. To that end, I eliminate useless information as much as possible to make room for the good stuff.
There are simple facts that need to be remembered while designing a UI:
- eyes move more easily than fingers
- buttons don't provide useful information (but can!)
- scrolling is useless and should be avoided
- minimize clicks, mouse moves and keystrokes
- informed decisions are better decisions
- context-based mouse clicks make sense
- keyboard shortcuts save time
- don't invent new keystrokes for old functions
- everything should work as expected
- file managers should show more files, db apps should show more data
- people can't choose from more than 7 items unless they are grouped
BTW There's no such thing as information overload. There's only useless information. If everything you show on a GUI is well organized it's all useful.
Sure, but the problem is that the design requirements of even that underlying code will need to be driven by UI demands. If you write a technically sweet filesystem that ignores UI concerns, it will tend to either suck for the user, require even more code to be added in to get it to work usably, or have to be scrapped and redone. E.g. having a filesystem that supports filenames instead of just having inodes that are GUID'd is a filesystem that has been at least in part written to accomodate interface.
Me, I find UI to be king. No one cares if good code or magical elves are making things work; it has to have a good UI. The best UIs appear to be those crafted by skilled UI designers that outrank the developers; they can give the developers an idea of what they want to be able to do, and let the latter group decide precisely how to best implement the UI group's wishes. They don't have autonomy, though.
Computers, and software, have to be developed from the outside in, is what it boils down to.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'd actually been searching around for something like this too and havent' found it, so it's been a trial and error thing figuring out a pattern for my app.
/r
What i've found to work is to use MVC in spirit but split up my application into
+ Tasks
+ Models
+ Controlers
+ Actions
+ Views
That's supposed to be a tree. This design came out of planning, reviewing the app's purpose, and environment constraints. I am developing my app in java/swing and i took the strengths it had but combined them into higher-level structures to help me make the app more modular.
Basically,
Tasks are general tasks that the user will perform. For example, an administrator managing customers of a web store.
Views represent the actual UI: trees, tables, text areas, fields, etc. Views register with the Tasks for appropriate model change notifications. I can provide a variety of views for my tasks and data, and incorporate tasks into higher tasks with complex views.
Actions represent the actual actions that a user will perform in that task's domain. for example, in the Administer Customers task, the user can "Delete", "Add", "Search For", "Edit" customers.
An object for each of these tasks is created and given a string representation, an inconic representation, and it implements the ActionPerformed function. this is taken straight out of swing.
Actions are then registered into the views and ui elements.
for example, in my customer manager window i provide a menu, but also buttons across the bottom. So now one action can provide the title of the menu or button text, the icon for the button, and the state for both menu and button.
finally, when either the item or the button are selected my one action gets the notification.
The action then trickles the command up into the task where the logic for enabling/disabling ui elements resides.
The Task then notifies the model (my data) so that proper manipulation can take place. Finally the model notifies the task and the task notifies the uis and actions for appropriate state change (enable disable commands) and view updates (change data in tables, etc.)
it works pretty well, and i've managed to extend things without having to code complex application state notification or validation so close to the UI. it works nicely in java/swing because up until recently most UI coding had to be done programmatically (didn't use resources like a windows rc) so i can tie UI objects fairly easily to controls. but i'm still not happy with it. however, it was the best i could come up with in a pinch.
hope this helps.
You've brought a rare thing to "Ask /.":
A good question that can't be answered without advice, that doesn't score a bazillion howto-hits on Google and that isn't shure to be absolutely above the heads of the slashdot crowd.
Nice to have some good question asked. Thanks.
Now for my shots at closing in on answers:
I have no larger mentionable expierience in UI design apart for the fact that I do have some webdesign expierience and a professional artist training, but I have used and operated a wide range of professional tools in the professional manner in which they were meant to be used and operated!!!
And that's a very important part of my/the answer allready:
All extremly complex professional GUI-tools each have their very own distinct, standards-pushing look and feel acustomed to their application family more than, let's say, the CUAS. And that's what makes up a good tool.
People who use Avid use it almost exclusively and for hours and years on end - and often on special hardware too. Same goes for Softimage or Houdini. Or check out the difference between Freehand, Illustrator and Corel Draw. The distinct, special funtionality of vector-drawing apps is approached in a different way by each. That's the same reason why you've got a wider range of Video NLE apps that do all the same but with often different workflow aproaches.
See what I'm saying: If you're tool is gonna be complex due to very special funtions that only a few people will need or even know, there is no point in trying to find a standard for GUI design. You won't be able to apply it properly.
What to use? Photoshop layers or Photopaint objects? How to join vectorcurves: Corel connect and combine or Freehand extend and join? The latter is a very good example: 2 totally different but valid approaches to a very important problem. For those that need solid vector graphics power.
Bottom line:
Programms that are so complex that they are most likely to become stand alone tools (maybe even with custom hardware!) *can't* follow design standards - because there are none! Such a programm gains recognition by having a distinct character and one team of professionals in it's userfield that really know what they're doing and set up their own set of rules and preferences as to which way the app has to work, behave, look, feel and is intended to be operated.
And believe me, nothing sucks more than trying to make a complex powerapp like, let's say, a 3D modeler, instantly 'usable' for people who only know office gui standards. Check out kpovmodeler to see what I mean.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca