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?"
Not an easy target, but a good one to aim for.
You are not the customer.
* 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
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).
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?
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 ?
...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:
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.
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.