Slashdot Mirror
What Do You Look For In Screenshots?
_iris asks: "Most software creators offer screenshots of their software in action. Screenshots are also included in most 3rd party software reviews and previews. The screenshots are usually focused on the unique features of the program. When I am evaluating software, I am usually interested in how the software differs in the more mundane ways. I'm more interested in differences in the file open/save dialogs, what program presents to me when I first open it, how the help system is integrated into the system, etc. My reasoning is that if there is only one or two programs that accomplish my needs, it doesn't matter much how it works or what it looks like because I am stuck either using it or writing my own. Do you care about the unique features or do you care about the slight differences in the common features or do you focus on something else entirely?"
I thought the April Fools Day stories were done.
1) Music player with your favorite album
2) Anime background picture
3) Transparency
If I'm taking a quick first glance,the screenshot better show me something I can't get somewhere else for half the time or money. Or nice breasts.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Not an easy target, but a good one to aim for.
You are not the customer.
No project has better screenshots than Ekiga with its delicious model.
I second the breasts, as long as they are not man breasts or if they are and they do not show the bottom half they can be man breasts on what appears to be a female or mermaid or mole person. If mole person do not show the face either.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Tits and Ass.
And I won't lie, I usually look for a functional and mature application. Maybe that means I'm ignoring potential applications. But I guess when I go to a website to see a screenshot, I want to know if its something that is mature enough that I can use. This is bad sometimes because you can't always tell the quality of an application from a screenshot.
Poor interfaces (esp if they do not follow the windows theme or use stupid eye candy) are a complete turn off to me and usually a GOOD indicator of the program's end value. I want LOTS of screenshots showing me each of the features. Perhaps a few screenshots in the actual review, and a link to a gallery with thumbnails of each of the shots and a link to a full resolution version.
At least for me, I like to see the whole screen in at least one of the shots. I'm not sure why, but it seems to convey some kind of honesty to me.
See the MythTV site to see a good idea of how screenshots can help someone evaluate a product
As a long-time AutoCAD user, the first thing I do when presented with a new GUI release is to jump in and modify the acad.pgp file (or whatever it's called now) so I can do things without having to re-learn what the icons do.
Looking at preview screenshots of a program don't really tell you much about how it operates or what the hierarchical structure of the commands are.
If it's a Linux screenshot, it MUST have at least one terminal emulator visible, perhaps many, perhaps nothing but terminal emulators, all showing the output of free or uptime. No self-respecting Linux geek would do otherwise.
* Clean design * Clear workflow * Easy access to common features * Wow factor (note that it's last on the list) More screenshots is better, particularly if we're talking about a large download, or a big application. A walk-thru tutorial of a typical use-case is even better.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
Or Ponies!!!!
The screenshots for an application should be self describing. If the screenshots can clearly show what features an application has then it is a good indication that the user interface is well designed, and that the focus of the program was usability and not 'cool looking widgets'. If you find that you have to describe what a screenshot is showing, then something is wrong.
On another note, did anyone else spend 5 minutes trying to find out where the 'file open' dialog was in WMP (our office is XP only, and yes it was pr0n).
Bank account numbers and cleartext passwords. Sadly I am often disappointed, so maybe you could include more of those?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
When I look at screenshots I like for the user to open every available program they have and try to fit it all on a 800x600 shot. Also, the more icons on the desktop the better. 100+ Please!
No really, since no one has a sense of humor, I'm joking.
Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
Good, consistent lighting - does everything cast a shadow? do characters have self shadowing? Does everything have a stupid lens bloom (the new lens flare), Any SH or PRT support? Realtime SSS?
Good view - Good framing, something interesting going on.
Next gen tech - do objects have motion blur? skinned characters/objects too? Does the engine support soft particles? Does it look like things clip through one another? What is the view distance like? How does the engine appear to handle fog/distance fog? Refraction?
Characters - How is the weighting? How do the faces look? Are the poses/animation realistic? Are the feet oriented to the ground normal?
Art - Do the assets share the same basic (consistent) texel resolution? Are the proportions right? Is everything normal mapped? Are the models as high resolution as they can be for the given platform? (Was this a game ported from a weaker primary platform, or was it built top down and rez'd to match secs)
There's a lot more, but I am tired. What do you look for in game screens?
... especially in game screen shots. I hate it when game companies use cutscene shots and doctorings (e.g., enhancements) to mislead buyers.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Or at least the screenshot showing the option to turn them on:- alive/screenshots/gameShotId,15217/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/dead-or
pixels. big-ass fat ones.
Screenshots should clearly demonstrate crucial features of the software, as I often jump to the gallery when I want to quickly find out if a prospective app does what I need (since textual documentation is either inexistent or written by a bullshitting yes-man). If the sole purpose of the screenshot is to demonstrate the developer's funky desktop or some dumb hobag of a model, it's a waste of bandwidth. Screenshots are kind of like an auto showroom.. I don't go to car dealers for "entertainment", I go there to buy a car and see it up close before I make my choice.
It's also quite nice to have a video or slideshow demonstrating the actual behavior of the software. You could look at thousands of Mac OSX screenshots, ok it's pretty but nothing special. Then you look at a full-motion video that shows how everything zooms, stretches and morphs with perfectly fluid movement, and you're wowed.
In any case, nothing compares to actually trying out the software and seeing how easy it is to operate.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I think all that pink made us inhale too much hairspray. I think the question was meant to be:
... a network monitor I want lots of pretty graphs and colors, but something that doesn't bother my eyes to view for prolonged periods of time. I look for nice contrasting alternating rows for any text displays, and if a web interface is involved I like seeing some nice css/xhtml looking screens that say it won't take 10 minutes to load a screen.
.. for instance look at the difference between Paint Shop Pro and Fireworks. To (me), Fireworks looks much more approachable.
.. they're only showing me the 3 cool parts of the program and the rest is crap (generally true). This holds true for 3'rd party reviews too, as the screen shot is the focal point and attention grabber to the article.
'when purchasing something, how heavily do you weight your decision on the user interface pictured with the product packaging ' - being a 3'rd party review or the back of the box itself.
If I'm going to spend a considerable amount of time installing something (~ 3 minutes or more) or God forbid actually buy it, the UI is important to me. If its , say
If its some sort of productivity ap or an IDE, a glance at the top tool bars gives me an idea of how intuitive the thing is
Games too, I'm really picky about combat styles in RPG's, and I want a really cool heads up if its a first person game. The faster I can find junk the better I can play.
So I think it carries some weight and more people should put more time into a more intuitive UI and less into junk 'value adds' that just make more buttons to push.
I'm 100% times more likely to try or buy something if I can play with a mock up first. Most web based control panels have a non functioning demo that let you explore the UI.
I think if someone is *just* offering screen shots, and no demo
I think that's what he was asking ?
the server and pipe still work so I can see them! No thanks to you slashdot...
this makes me real glad. Nowadays I am not much involved with screenshots, I am focusing more on open source projects. Reading about screenshots, just made my day.
I look for pics of hot girls. I find it funny that most desktop screenshots have some semi-nude girl as the wallpaper. Obviously good software should come pre-installed with nudie pics.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If this is tagged gay ponies, where are the screenshots of that?
I prefer to see screenshots in motion, like Ruby on Rails for example.
_______
2B1ASK1
Your wish is my command.
http://jpexeso.sourceforge.net/
BTW, NSFW.
...a clean default interface. If its Windows or Mac software, it
:D
should use the current default for that system. One of the things
I've always hated about WinAMP, Quicktime, etc, is all the flash
and eyecandy they wrap their stuff in.
I also want to know things like what's the memory footprint of the
program (approximately), how it deals with SMP and dual core systems
and what bizarre external dependencies it has. Of course, those
aren't really screenshot items.
404 Error:
come on, you have to ask?
"What Do You Look For In Screenshots?"
Give me "Pink Ponies" for $1,000, Alex
What I look for in a screenshot is the conecptual model of the program and what metaphors it uses. Lets say I see a tree of objects taking up the left hand side. That means that that hierarchy is quite important and is probably the "framework" that the program runs around.
If I see a "toolbox" (e.g., photoshop, Visual Basic) then I know it uses that metaphor. If I see a million and one different confusing buttons arranged all over the show, I know this is going to be a confusing program to understand.
If I see a picture of a real-world CD player, I'll know the design team is more interested in looking cool (for a very deranged value of cool, in this case) rather than writing a computer program.
If a screenshot is meant to show a specific window's layout or functionality, I want to see it with the rest of the application behind it. It's part of giving me a feel for how it works. I am not interested in seeing closeups of a specific part, but rather a full, high resolution screen shot of the desktop with whatever part of the application is being shown running in the foreground.
I expect to NOT have to relearn how to do things. It should be so easy to use that ANY user familiar with that type of software can jump right in and use it effectively and efficiently.
It should look and feel as familiar to me as every other application (and the Operating System) that is on the computer.
So, don't show me that it's different - Show me how it looks when I'm using it. Certainly show any unique feature(s) that make your product better than what I'm using. Show me where your software kicks your competitor's to the curb. Show me how your stuff will make my life easier.
That's what I look for.
For a desktop app, I look for what items are in menus. It tells me which
functionality is available and whether it is easily accessible. I also
look for whether dialog boxes are decent and easy to use.
There are also apps like Firefox where GUI can be adjusted. In those
cases I also look for a few example of extremes to which I can push
the GUI.
In the case of desktop environments, it is much the same but I look for
the most and the least cluttered layouts and whether transparency is
available. For instance, if all screenshots show two bars going across
the desktop (say, one with app launcher and the other with pager) then
I know I won't be using that desktop (I prefer minimalist).
For game screenshots, I look for eye candy. I try to find hard to
render things: water (still not realistic even with best and
fanciest GPUs - physics matters, water still looks like jelly even
in still screenshots), vegetation (polygon count still is a couple of
orders of magnitude too low for decent vegetation), human skin and
overall posture. Truth be told, you really want to see a demo or a
movie of a game to evaluate it, since a screenshot is not so
representative.
I look for an organized interface with an intuitive GUI that draws your eye to the segregation of certain information and the operations that can be performed. In other words, I look for good interface design.
If its a game, I'm wowed by a variety of complementary organic colors. Pretty simple really. I like lush greens and flashy neons. Grey and dark don't do it for me. Games like Far Cry, or WoW, or even Tron 2.0 stand out by their screen shots, and a lot of that is color selection, but also great textures.
"What Do You Look For In Screenshots?"
Attractive screens, silly.
Ponies. Lots and lots of ponies. Preferrably pink. If I can't say, "OMG! Ponies!" it doesn't matter what else the screenshot shows, it's lost me.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I'm more interested in differences in the file open/save dialogs, what program presents to me when I first open it, how the help system is integrated into the system, etc. My reasoning is that if there is only one or two programs that accomplish my needs, it doesn't matter much how it works or what it looks like because I am stuck either using it or writing my own.
So, if how a program works is not what you look for in a review, what are you looking for? Is it still April Fools in here? Now for a straight answer, because the subject is actually worth talking about.
Divide and conquer. Everything has it's place and it's better to reference non core items. Know your focus and stick to it and you won't waste the reader's time.
The submitter throws out a number of examples. Open/save dialogs are unique features of meta projects like Gnome and KDE. I'm very interested in how those work when I'm looking at a new window or file manager. KDE sockets have support for samba, sftp, ftp, http, audiocd and more, how cool is that? Screen shots of those are impressive and can be found at KDE's site. When reviewing a media player, lyric fetching, cover management or list generation are how the program works and what's important. It's nice to know that the media player works with the system's underlying file manager and you can get your files by sftp, but you can just say so and link back to the KDE screenshots. The same can be said about skins, which may add character or distract depending on what program you are talking about.
I teach a Linux Class to newbies, so this is something I have to consider often. I only want to teach the important parts of each program and have to be careful about the screenshots used for step by step instruction. Attention spans are limited, so I have to be picky and well organized while I try to cram as much as I can into each class. When teaching, I have to ask myself how I use the program and what I like about it. I'll often show only a region of a program so that it stands out. The result is a very select series of images which show off the strengths of the program. People are not interested in weaknesses. If a program has a weakness in a peripheral function, no one cares. If the weakness is in core function, I won't be teaching with it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Except for one or two major features, or of course in the case of the manual. If your app has feature X, it should be sufficient to just say so in a feature list on your website.
Otherwise, when I'm looking at a screenshot of an app, I use it to get an overall sense of quality. I want to see that the interface is nicely and consistently put together. If your primary interface is nice looking, and intuitive to use, I can generally infer that you put the same quality into the UI for each individual feature.
Hmm... one other tip, don't include your desktop in the screenshot. A lot of people have funky looking desktops, and assume that viewers will be amused by looking at it. This may be true, but it also distracts from what you are showing, and makes it less convenient to look at. You can generally just copy an image of the window in question, and then have plenty of space next to it for text.
If that doesn't help, I look at the full-screen terminal applications (which can and should have screenshots), and as a last resort, the GUI applications.
For non-visual software, the man page is a good indication of quality. A sensible set of command-line options, correct grammar, formatting et cetera probably means the program doesn't suck.
Oh well, then your classes must be very enlightening. Until your "students" get home and try to do something with the application you just "taught" them how to use.
That's why me and the other two teachers provide step by step slides. Even an AC bartender who runs a hate site can get things done that way. See for yourself. Sorry, Ackbar, that we don't have any instructions to help you migrate from your mighty leet G5. F the haters, baby.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Personally, I look for nekkid wimmin in screenshots
I mostly look to see whether an application has an attractive interface. If it looks well put together I figure it's more likely to actually be well put together. I also like to see them so that when I actually run the program I'm not seeing it for the first time. I like to get its layout in my head before I even begin to download it so I don't have to stare at it for a moment when I first start it up. I can just go right to work (in most cases).
I've seen screenshots that are a smaller resolution than the screen capture they represent! Some eejit has scaled the screenshot before uploading it. If a screenshot isnt 1:1 pixels on your screen as on the author's screen then you are going to lose something somewhere.
I once put up a screenshot of an app I wrote and told my colleague where to find it. He said the text wasn't readable. Huh? I re-uploaded it again. Still not readable. Eventually I taught him how to do a screen capture in Windows and mail me that so I could see what was going on. That was when I discovered Internet Explorer shrunk images to fit the browser window. At the time Mozilla didn't do that (you got scroll bars). Now I try to remember to wrap screenshots in a little HTML so that they show at the right size.
I resort to looking at screenshots when desperately trying to grasp some of the functionality of newly advertised applications. Most frustrating.
You can easily get nice breasts?
You could be missing out on a lot of good programs that way.
If it doesn't follow the windows theme might because it wasn't a windows application. It could have been made for an other OS. OS 9, OS X, DOS, Linux, Unix, VMS. The application could have been made many years ago but it worked so well the developer didn't want to mess things up by putting a OS friendly Interface on it.
Eye Candy isn't always as wasteful as many people expect, if done properly. Animations can help ease the eye and help you find your way threw the application faster. Some good examples are like when a box grows in a data entry screen and the data below it moves with it. If it just jumped to the new size the person who was keeping an eye on the data below it would loose their place but the animation allows their eye to follow the data they are looking at. Shadows are handy to show that something is in top of something else. They just help give the eye quicker reference on where things are especially if you have a lot of windows and complex images on them. As humans we are use to seeing things that have texture, Depth, That don't pop in and out of existence, And when we see things like that our brain needs to adjust for it, sure it only takes a second or so to do the adjustment but if you are dealing with information that goes relatively fast that could take you more time to do your job then it takes for the computer to processes it.
Don't get me wrong there is a lot of Crappy EyeCandy out there things like Clippy and Vista Current Window Transparency level to way to high to be useful and helpful and it is unnatural, which causes us to look at the transparent window and not the application. And there is the changing of windows borders for every app like WinAmp. But if the developer has a good reasion for the candy then it usually doesn't effect the program quality in the slighetest.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
At least pictures of nice breasts are availableto anyone capable using /. -- that's for sure. Real ones? Well, I may be a geek, but I'm also a firefighter. EVERYONE loves firefighters. 'nuff said.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Show all the features the software has Screenshot variety, dont show the same feature 3 times Keep the screenshots up to date, its a lot of work but its nice to have new shots, not something old or where you are trying to find a setting and all the shots are from version 1.02 that was released 4yrs ago Please no debugging garbage shots unless its a alpha version or people will have to compile it on their own Make the screenshots contrast with the site background. Ive seen screenshots of web apps that used the same background as the page and it was hard to tell where the screenshot started and began plus the guy showed little pictures rather than a full shot but again it seemed like it was part of the page maybe just put a border around it Thumbnails are nice, preferably ones that arent the 500k JPG just resized Next/Prev buttons are nice if you are going to use a popup to show the screenshots
This is true, but it's also a sad reflection on the state of apps these days.
... (Enough! I just want to try it out! Why make me do this useless crap at all, much less before I've even run it once?)
On Mac software websites, I tend to see a few (less than 7) screenshots, of various sections of the app. That's enough to give me a good overview of what it does, how it's laid out, and so forth. If it looks interesting, I download it, and run it. (Proprietary apps often have free demos, that don't let you save your work, for example.)
On Windows and (especially) Linux software websites, I tend to see a lot (often 25 or more) screenshots, showing every possible window or dialog-box that the app has. It's basically a way for you to mentally run the app, without having to install it.
That really points to the big differences between them:
1. Mac apps tend to be a lot easier to install. In fact, you don't need to install them. Just download and run. On Linux and Windows, you download, run a setup program, decide where to create shortcuts, find the dependencies you need first, maybe compile something from source
2. Mac apps tend to have richer interfaces. (To be fair, this is changing, so it's not as Mac-specific as it used to be.) You can look at the screenshots for most Linux apps, and see what the interface does -- the only things you do are click, or drag to choose a menuitem. On the Mac, how many screenshots would you need just to demonstrate the entire drag-n-drop functionality of Final Cut Express? It's innovative, yet completely discoverable.
(Maybe that's a bad example, because I don't know that Apple has free demos of its apps to try, but they have them installed on every Mac in every Apple Store, to get you to try them out, and they also have Quicktime movies on their webpage. They know that screenshots alone don't do their apps justice.)
As Windows/Linux apps become richer (which I already see happening, especially with the rise of higher-level languages), and become easier to install (which I don't see happening yet), screenshots will become less important. Look at Google Maps -- webpages don't require installation, and are becoming richer; would a screenshot alone show you how cool Google Maps is? No -- it's easier to just load the page and try it! When all apps are like that, we won't need screenshots nearly as much.
The screenshots I see are mostly for linux/unix desktops. Now, I'm minimalistic in my own system, black screen with an xterm or two is adequate to get started. But when I look at screenshots, I want to see features that would appeal to a 13 year old. I see the screenshot as tool to get young people to try out the software. Linux power users may like the command line, but it looks scary and painful to the uninitiated. Rightly or not, they equate the eye candy with a more advanced system. Fvwm may be sufficient for my real work, but if a kid is looking over my shoulder, then I want the screen to look like it belongs to James Bond, not Professor Thinkstoomuch. The Enlightenment Window Manager used to have some themes that fit this purpose pretty well. At the risk of advocating glitter over substance, design the software like you wanted it to be featured on an episode of CSI.
I look for a nice layout, and pretty icons. Seriously, somehow I figure that if enough effort has been put into making something look nice, it should work nice. I almost always evaluate projects based on the webstie and screenshots to determine what I'll run with.
4)Shell window open on the desktop, since there's no better way of showing the computer-illiterate masses how easy to use your operating system is. And besides, no one else has anything even approaching a shell window, DOS box or telnet client.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I look for an open IRC window in which the person recording the snapshot tells all the channel participants to "Say Cheese". :)
Well, not pyromaniacs. They probably don't like you at all. Other than that though, yes, everybody loves firefighters ;-)
Sadly, that whole "Pyro-arsonist joins the local fire department thing" has happened so many times its a cliche. It's so common that when I joined a volunteer department I had to have a background check. I've heard of two cases in five years within 50 files. Apparently, Pyro's love firefighters too.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
One thing for sure, I don't want to wade through a zillion thumbnails of screenshots like some people upload to demonstrate what a new OS looks like.
I often make demonstration screenshots for presentation of what my software looks like, or will look like if the client chooses to pay me to build it. The Gimp is very useful here.
Since the eyes glaze over very quickly, and it takes effort to make a good sample screen, I usually make a bare minimum necessary to give the user an idea of how it works / why it is important they buy it. This is 1 or max 2 screens for a general demo, or if I want to do a little manual animation in person then maybe 4 or 5 (only to a client who understands software). By animation I mean that I describe a user interaction in a couple sentences and flip through the printouts to illustrate.
I don't need to see a zillion screenshots of every panel available, or a zillion menus all dropped down and moused over. I want to sell the thing, or to get someone excited about a concept. You need to spend time with the Gimp or Photoshop and make something that is clear and 1) makes the client think the software exists and is not vaporware, and 2) simulates a real user experience, so you have something concrete to point at when you discuss it. A couple Impress slides may also be useful but the key is to have the absolute minimum necessary. Sometimes I make a screen that is not really a screen, but a picture of an object, to start off the client saying "Hey what's that?" so you can think cinematically. You don't always need a whole screen either, sometimes a closeup is useful too.
Normally I look for the ability to make my enemies into as many small, bloody chunks as possible.
Now what I specifically don't want to see is the word "Microsoft".
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
something I can't get somewhere else for half the time or money. Or nice breasts.
don't you mean:
something I can't get somewhere else for half the time or money, i.e. nice breasts.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
"I'm more interested in differences in the file open/save dialogs"
Really... REALLY?? I remember back in the dying days of Win 3.1 when it seemed like programmers finally started using common dialogs - it was like a freakin' revelation. Unless the program does something seriously innovative (ie, standard opening/closing just won't work for it) they really should be left alone.
Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
http://www.panoramafactory.com/screens.html
can't be beat it just explains the process of using the software well.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
1) Waldo / Wally
2) OMG PONIES they are so CUTE!!!xxxx
3) CowboyNeal
And find out that it was a screenshot of the FMV cutscene...
(this isn't so much a joke either, it's sadly quite common)
I try to see if the program seems to be written or actually used. Very often programs seem to have all the greatest features, but they are not written by someone who actually uses them. It is easy to take an authentic screenshot when actually using a program, but quite hard to fake (sometimes).