Slashdot Mirror
Are Programmers Ruining the Design of eBooks?
An anonymous reader writes "The Toronto Review of Books claims that the majority of digital books are awful because major publishers are handing over the design work to programmers, not artists and editors. This results in the 'typographical horrors' typical of so many eBooks, and hundreds of 'lackluster' iPad adaptations. 'Programmers are suddenly being given free reign to design books,' the article laments. 'Most publishers don't care about the iPad or eBooks very much... which may be an aesthetic rejection based on the publisher's historical reverence for the printed page.' Don't we deserve better eBooks?"
(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)
I find it amusing that the article linked for this story has some atrocious typography of its own. In today's day and age of CSS3, that sort of leading on the internet is simply unacceptable. If you're going to complain about the typography in ebooks, perhaps you'd like to get your own website in order first.
That's why I always use Comic Sans :)
This is a symptom of the down economy, but also of the must-make-earnings-or-else management style.
PHB's don't see design and development as needing different skillets, they just see two jobs that can be consolidated into one. If you have a programmer who does a B+ job programming and a C- job on design, eliminate the design, produce a C+ product, and then go tell your C*O you eliminated positions without impacting productivity.
"more fast"? Sounds like an English major there.
There's your problem right there. It's not the programmer's fault if he hasn't been given an artist or designer to work with. If you give an unqualified person a job to do and they do a shitty job, it's your fault, not theirs. Either get someone qualified in, or give them the necessary training.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Probably what is happening is that management is trying to go cheap on labor. I can see the attitude in my mind. Someone says "Why do we need designers when we can just have the programmers throw it on the eBook for free?"The same thing happened with websites for years, before people realized how important good design really is.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks.
Well... I think what Linux geeks miss is that the parts of Linux that they like best are things the general public is not interested in. Customizability is not something the average home PC user cares about. They want things to "just work". The standard for "easy" is Apple, and people don't feel like computers should be any harder to use than that.
Hobbyists, which is what Linux geeks are, want something different than everyone else does. There are some people who enjoy working on cars and fixing them, customizing them, souping them up, doing DIY repairs... most people just want to get to work without thinking about it.
I don't want specific media for ebooks. I want an ebook device that accurately displays the printed page.
Where's my A4 300+DPI E-ink tablet that's been promised 'just around the corner' for years now.
I prefer my ebooks as .epub, thank you very much.
More clutter the better, design an easy GUI and they don't buy your documentation, manuals and Amazon dummies books -- the only revenue you will ever see from your FOSS.
And here, boys and girls, we have one of the so-called "designer" types that has been fucking up Ubuntu et al for the last two years.
Programmers don't really understand good design and usability.
While sometimes true, it is far more commonly a failure to understand the user. The ability to evaluate the usability of an interface, not just based on how it fits your needs, but on how it would fit someone else's needs is rare and requires a good bit of cultivating. Of course everyone thinks this is easy because they know what is wrong, but it is really the same as with the programmers, you just know what works for you. So you might reword that statement as "People don't really understand good design and usability."
And to bring this back on topic, artists and editors are (on balance) no better at usability than programmers. They do however have significant domain-specific insights into how to present readable text and that should not be discarded. You should however also bring in usability experts to help design the interactive aspects of your e-book experience.
Not to detract from the programmers are stupid bandwagon here, but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem, yes, but more so the problem is that Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together. A lot more stuff is user space than in windows / osx and the tradeoff is that user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff. It leaves Linux more secure but user space programs failing that average joe has no idea how to remedy does not make him happy.
But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI. I know perfectly well how to. All you do is come at it from the perspective that it needs to work for someone who has no idea how anything works (aka, my mother) and someone who knows how everything works (aka, me, if I made it) and make sure there is no gap in the swathe of people between those extreme points where the design fails to, if not intuitively, at least give them the ability to change it to become intuitive for them, naturally favoring the lower end where significantly more people are than the high end.
The problem is that the design work is being done by someone who doesn't care about typography and usability, not because it is done by someone who is skilled in programming.
If you don't know about about structure, algorithms and logic, it is hard to give an application design that is novel, implementable and will actually work out the way it is envisioned. But to effectively design you need skills in design as well as actually caring about the usecases. Code is the medium to express design, just like paint and stone can be used to express visual art, but an interface designer who can't code is as useless as an artist who cannot use a paintbrush or chisel. Coding isn't that hard if you can structure your thoughts clearly enough to explain your design to others anyway, there's nothing arcane to it.
So the crux is, two things, equally important, the code and what you are coding.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
The summary is more than usually dreadful. This was a thoughtful interview with the guy that designed the Alice in Wonderland app, ie someone who knows what he's talking about. And he's right.
No more than the display of a web page should be entirely up the client. Often the style is not all that relevant, but sometimes fonts, spacing, line-breaks, placement of images, etc are important to the author intent.
Graphical UI's are more fast, easier to use, you don't need to remember commands and even new users can do their thing quickly, without resorting to reading manuals and other crap like that.
I'll give you the rest, but no way graphical UIs are faster than using command-line tools.
They're faster for new or occasional users, that's all.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I wish they would. LaTeX is typically much better at typesetting than your average artist/editor using Word. All real programmer would use LaTeX right? (No, I haven't RTFA)
Software can't turn you into a great designer any more than it can turn you into a great programmer.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Ribbon - Designed by programmers, Loved by some, Hated by others - there seems to be no groupings on this some programmers love the Ribbon, some hate it, some experienced Word user love it, some hate it, some new users love it some hate it ... This is not a good design....this would be a system where people use it without complaint ...i.e. no-one hates it
The real issue *is* a programming one, most books are typeset by non-programmers and non-artists - Just like normal books, and normal newspapers so they need tools that will allow them to produce book that look as good as possible with no effort or time ...these are seemingly non-existent ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Thanks also, I don't have to second that since you did it.
That's what stroke me first: "what an horrible typography !"
How ironic.
But then, trying to read such a page is a pain, so I gave up... And that's not amusing.
I really hate when I see a term like "Plauger's spectrum", go to find the definition of it, and the only use of it ever, is right here on Slashdot with no explanation of what it is anywhere else...
Linux is Unix, Apple (iOS, and OSX) is Unix, Android is Unix ... All totally built around the command line ...?
How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...
Unix was designed around the command line 40 years ago ... but you don't need it anymore for everyday use, this is not stopping you using it, but you don't need it now unless you are customising the system ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Many Linux geeks don't "miss" it, we just don't care.
Dilbert RSS feed
Of course designers know better design than programmers, that's obvious. Programmers are there to do their job. They program. They build the system and its functionalities. They are not designers, and if they know something about UI and design, it's a bonus, not a defficiency. It eBooks lack decent design, it's because the publishers didn't hire designers. You can build an ugly program with only a programmer, but you can't build a pretty software with only a designer. Programmers are essentials. If you ever need a working app, you know which to hire first.
You're really setting yourself up for flaming, you know. You bring up a valid point but your method is so abrasive that few people will listen to you.
Yes, design is, in fact, a thing many people don't understand however design can make or break a product, and I wish more people who are on the left-side of their brains would realize that. We perhaps don't realize it but subconsciously we prefer more aesthetically pleasing interfaces/media/etc to ones that are uninspired. At least I do.
Anyhow, GUI's aren't always easier to use and the command line is the superior tool for some things because of one thing: it is explicit. Commands do exactly what you tell them to do, there is no guesstimation. Yes, a button is either pressed or not but you have to aim your pointer at the button :-). I can type "ps auwx | grep python" without having to move my wrist about the GUI and thus it can be quicker in some cases. Add in tab-completion and "remembering commands" is trivial.
This whole learning curve rubbish is just that, rubbish. I remember teaching my 9 year old cousin how to use a PC (she never had used one before). It didn't come "naturally" to her, she had to learn it as something new. Newsflash: buttons and switches didn't exist in nature! Saying that somehow we prefer GUIs by some a priori preference is silly. We find these familiar because buttons and switches are things we have learned to be used to from physical analogs like light switches but the "preference" stops there. There is one pre-computer analog to the command line and I bet my socks that it is more second nature(or first!) than switches: speech.
There is a reason people still use the command line and it isn't because of some cult of computer geeks that keep it going; it actually is quite useable.
Disclaimer: I am a technical writer, and have a lot of experience with publishing workflows.
I love the ease of obtaining books for my e-book reader. I also love the space savings I get from e-books and not having to choose which physical book to dispose of when I get a new one.
Given good content to work with, any programmer could figure out how to make it beautiful using LaTeX. There are even several excellent packages for typesetting novels out there on CTAN. However, there isn't a mature, standardized workflow to get from LaTeX to epub. I sort of expected this by now. It'd be nice if XeLaTeX had an output driver for epub. Everything on planet LaTeX revolves around PDF output, and it doesn't do tagged PDF output, which means that paragraphs cannot be reflowed. So, you can generate a beautiful document for your e-book reader, as long as you don't plan to zoom, and you have to generate a different PDF file for every size of device out there.
That's not to say that LaTeX and friends haven't come a long way. Synctex and TeXworks make editing a joy. XeTeX and fontspec make font selection easy-cheesy.
However, I pine for the day when I can just do epublatex document.tex or taggedpdflatex document.tex and get awesome output. I don't want to have to rasterize my graphics either... I just want it to work. It's coming, I'm sure.
It's about horseys, you see.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
They are different, you cannot really compare the speeds. doing many things by command line simply takes a lot of typing and clicking can be quite fast.
Also the gui does a far better job of stopping the user from looking up how to do things and customization, both of which can waste a lot of time.
And I don't care who you are, either you have every single command memorized (with every single argument as well) and you have wasted, probably months of your life learning these things or more likely just know some small subset and have to look up news ones on occasion.
Every second spent learning how to use a computer and customizing a computer is wasted, and if it can be trimmed down with a better interface then you have just created a better interface.
So the answer: After tens years of practice, uncountable hours (probably closer to days or weeks in some cases) reading man pages, and a similar amount of time creating custom scripts I can now use my computer 25% faster then GUI users (as long as I only do normal every day tasks) is not a shining recommendation for the command line.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Most of the time I'm on Linux (or BSD for that matter), I use the command line. Mostly because, for what I do with it, the GUI tools available on either aren't very good. Particularly for file navigation/management. In general they either look like garbage, or just feel kludgy in the way the act.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
No, it cant. But good software at least has decent defaults that were set by someone that knows his/her stuff.
UnNetHack: NetHack Improved!
LaTeX is strongly geared towards producing printed documents. It has a very comprehensive (and beautiful!) amount tweaks, heuristics, and mostly everything is overridable. And while it can be used as the basis for non-printed outputs (i.e. latex2html makes nice structured, internally linked documents), it's not its main goal.
Reworking a LaTeX document to be used as the source for an epub (believe me, I have been looking at it from some different angles for a physical book we recently printed) is... Far from trivial.
Lynx isn't command line, it's console. Having used both (primarily firefox), yes, Lynx IS faster than firefox, but if you like pictures, stick with FireFox...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
'Programmers are suddenly being given free reign to design books,' the article laments.
Given? We're being "given" this?
I don't know how it works in the ebook industry, but in my fifteen years of professional programming in a variety of other industries, I've found that when they "give" me free reign to design the UI, it really means they rejected my suggestion that they hire a designer (if they even asked).
You're pointing at the wrong target, bud -- it's the chucklehead manager, with the designer clothes and designer watch, who thinks designers are a waste of money.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The design failure is that they don't allow users to select the ribbon OR classic menus.
Unless you have to support the product :-)
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I found the whole process of converting my word document, which looked great when printed, into the Kindle format a total chore. It was so bad that I had my best friend finish it and publish it under his Kindle account. That was a couple of years ago and maybe things have changed. I guess having eBook readers read Word documents is too much of a leap.
Home of The Suki Series
Sure, we just need someone to define a universal and finite set of semantic elements that define every possible author's intent. Have fun with Only Revolutions, or if you're the type that thinks it's not a real book if you didn't read it in high school, E.E. Cummings.
Ideal and practical are, unfortunately, two very different things.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Doesn't happen in Apple.
PS given the money spent on ringtones, screensavers and backdrops for phones, I highly doubt your "Customizability is not something the average home PC user cares about.".
One of the remaining options like getting a UI designer to design your UI.
If it's your job to use computers efficiently and effectively, or have to access servers remotely via a shell, that can be quite useful.
But what do I know? It's not like we extensively use computers that need maintenance. We all know that managing large institutional networks is exactly just like using MS word on our personal PCs.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
One of the remaining options like getting a UI designer to design your UI.
Mmm, Unity and Gnome 3.
Letting 'UI designers' design UIs has been a freaking disaster, because they always seem to pick shiny over usability.
I wish there were a "mod to infinity" option. If there were, I would give it to you.
Too many programmers think of a UI like some needless accessory (or worse yet, think *they* know how to design a great UI, which usually leads to disaster). This is why so many open source apps have such godawful UI's. GIMP, Blender, etc. have a lot of great work under the hood, from a lot of very dedicated and skilled programmers. Too bad they've traditionally been buried beneath a *horrid* UI that would have made Steve Jobs commit seppuku.
Here's a tip. If your open source project is worth a bunch of programmers, it's worth at least one decent designer too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That it. If I can get the damn Linux freaks who despise anything GUI to learn that one thing my users would be happy.
There IS something about dressing things up too much, yes. But that does NOT mean that all style is a bad or useless thing.
Say that again: Style vs Substance is NOT a Zero Sum Game
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem
What 'command line problem'? My girlfriend uses Linux all the time and wouldn't have a clue as to what to do if presented with a command line prompt.
Linux hasn't required regular command line usage for a decade now.
There have been several dips in typographic quality over the years, usually when the book industry transitions to a new technology or way of working. Going from Linotype machines to computer typesetting lead to some serious dips in typographic quality for a while. The dip was even more severe when printing was outsourced and most typographers was fired and replaced with layouters and designers. The desktop publishing (DTP) horrors from the late 1980's and 1990 also springs to mind. Usually it wasn't the new technology that was to blame, but that typographic knowledge got lost in the transition to the new technology because of cost cutting measures. The new technologies promised productivity improvements and lower cost through reduction in the workforce, but when the workforce is sacked, their knowledge disappear too.
So it is no surprise that e-books etc. will introduce horrible sloppy typography with no sense of line length versus font size, weird line and word spacing, no knowledge of kerning, no reasoning behind the font used, or matching between text and font.
But over time decent publishing houses will ensure at least some basic standard of typography for their e-books. There will probably not be a return to the high typographic standards of the 1950's early 1960's, but the default quality will be good and unobtrusive enough that it won't disturb the readers. However, the next group of knowledge workers in the firing line are the editors; when they are gone or reduced to merely salespeople, the text qualities of the books and e-books will drop to new low standards.
--
Regards
How many times do you use a command line (or even see one) on any of these in normal use ...? ...about the same as in Windows ... i.e. never ...
On my Mac i Use the command line every day, most of the time. I sometimes write word documents with a bash script (actually, using Word on a mac with data from a database is a Great way of publishing things, because someone who knows Word can do the final processing and layout).
I use the command line on the Mac to do image processing and a lot of other things too. BUT I refuse to use Linux as a desktop GUI because they cannot even get a font to render priorly and because some things MUSt be done is a GUI and there are no good programs for that in Linux. If you can use a command line AND a Gui to do your work you will find a lot of productivity increase. And for that, MacOS/X is pretty much the only game in town.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Agreed. I've seen my share of beautiful but horrible usability-wise interfaces.
Furthermore, it's a well known fact that even usability experts only have limited success in predicting the failures of real users with a given interface. And I think most real usability experts are in the analytical camp, knowing what to look for and how to setup a user test to deconstruct an interface, not actually designing new interfaces.
You're kidding right? This guy just criticized everyone and then pushed ribbon as a case of excellent design. He went so far as to say that everything's faster with a GUI, and we all know that isn't true.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
I can't imagine how bad an ebook designed by artists/editors would turn out. 90% of designers still think the web is print, even the ones who grew up using the web. If artists were in charge, an eBook would be a 500mb PDF with rendered graphics of every page.
What is needed is a modern typesetter profession, with a mix of design/UI sense and logical/programming skills, who can design "books" with various requirements that can be viewed on a multitude of devices with different sizes and capabilities, with minimal time invested in each individual book.
"Given good content to work with, any programmer could figure out how to make it beautiful using LaTeX .. However there isn't a mature, standardized workflow to get from LaTeX to epub", infernalC
"The second talk came from Andrew Ford, who focussed on converting a LaTeX book to ePub format, using the example of his wife’s cookbook of vegetarian recipes. Andrew explained that the ePub format is a combination of XHTML and CSS, and that LaTeXML has allowed a relatively painless conversion process. Looking beyond ePub, conversion to Kindle format (which unlike ePub is closed)."
"Ribbon - Designed by programmers,"
- Citation needed
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Maybe developers are more selfless about devoting their time to FOSS projects than designers/UI people.
Make the UI layer detached from all the core logic. Get a GUI-oriented guy to focus on the UI only.
I thought this was a standard design pattern, no ? There's nothing "burried", they just had more focus on the functionality and don't have a dedicated GUI guy.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Not disagreeing here, just trying to add to what you are saying.
Programmers aren't horrible people or anything, they've just spent a lot of time at becoming quite good at a specific skill. Artists and designers spend an equal amount of time becoming good at another skillset, and usability specialists spend the same time becoming good at understanding other stuff that faces the user.
I don't really think that the problem is the fault of the programmers, but rather management. See, management seems to understand the process of creating something as only the mechanical part of the creation (hammering in the nails, writing the code, making the pictures) and completely miss the complexity of coming up with a good design to begin with, as well as the iterative nature of most good design (usually only partly successful on the first try). This is just the mentality of managers, mostly old-school managers who still think that all problems can be solved by engineering and manufacture (or the equivalent).
Most programmers that I know are fully aware of the fact that their skills at making usable interfaces are very limited, as is their knowledge of colour theory and such (the domain of the graphic designer). I am painfully aware that although I can perform a mean usability analysis, my skill at programming is limited to "hello world" levels. Okay, some graphic designers think that usability is simple and they can do it based on artistic insight (they usually state this just before creating some usability nightmare).
Management then stops the programmer from implementing the solutions proposed by the usability experts as that takes resources away from making the nuts and bolts and says something like "we will fix that at the end of the project", resulting in a really clever but unusable product that requires a few months of fixing all the little details at the end...which is too much work, so it just gets shipped like that. Surprise, surprise, nobody wants to pay for it.
Editors for text, artists for art, usability experts for usability, programmers for programming, and managers who have a clue about this all. Please?
It's not a designer you need. There are plenty of UI designers who prioritize form over function. To really get a simple, workable, clean UI you need a usability expert who is going to take the time to design a front end that streamlines the functionality and ease of use for the end users. It's not easy, but with the proper prototyping and testing, any UI can be improved.
It's sad to see the current state of eBooks. There is so much potential there, features and possibilities which are as yet untapped.
I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
The most obvious example of the Ribbon is Office.
Which I think is a bad example for *anything* UI related. Mostly because office software is so ridiculously crufty that the only way to make it more usable is by offering *less* features.
Firefox does pretty well with the ribbon. what's going to get me off FF isn't the ribbon.
(Hey Moz, fix the damn memory leaks!)
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Isn't merely discussing this topic running the grave risk of having the ghost of Donald Knuth come from the future, heavy with unutterable wrath, and smite us all?
You seem to be underestimating time spent learning and using GUIs and overestimating time spent learning CLIs.
Once you learned basics of some interface - graphical or textual - time spent learning new tools with similar interface is logarithmically smaller, you already know where to look.
Fundamental error the OP troll and you make is assuming for some reason that CLI and GUI are mutually exclusive. They're not. They're complementary.
CLI (in various incarnations) beats GUI every time on repetetive, clearly defined tasks. GUI beats CLI every time on tasks requiring tweaking and immediate feedback. Think TeX for scientific papers vs PageMaker for a magazine.
Yeah, this has been a pain in the ass for me. Ballantine Press (Random House imprint for Sci-fi & Fantasy) has really screwed up the typography on their ebooks. It is clear that there is absolutely no QA going on in the publishing houses. I have yet to buy an ebook from Ballantine that does not require editing of the ebook to make it readable.
McCaffrey's The Dragonriders of Pern trilogy collection is in terrible shape. Typographical errors are bad enough, but the books are loaded with spelling errors as well. It was so bad, I actually wrote a letter of complaint to the publisher. I forked over good money for a story I enjoyed, and found it almost unreadable due to the problems. One of the worst examples was the place name "Ruatha". I found over twenty times when it was misspelled as "Ruath"--in one case, it was even misspelled on a page where they had the correct spelling in the following paragraph!
Of a number of ebooks I've bought from Ballantine, I've had to break open the ebook files on all of them an edit the text and the CSS to correct the errors. It is clear to me that publishers have placed such a low priority on ebooks that they are willing to put out substandard product into the market without any quality control. In Piers Anthony's Xanth series, all it took was two tiny changes to the CSS to fix their typographical mistakes to make it a pleasure to read again.
Example: In the CSS in some of the ebooks, I noted that they had listed paragraph indentation defined as pixels. Well, 15 pixels on an ebook reader are not the same size as 15 pixels on a computer screen or a smart phone display. Pixels are a subjective value where one device can have 300 pixels in an inch another can have just 72. It is better to define text indentation as an objective value such as 1 cm or 1.5 em so it gets indented properly, no matter the device that is displaying the text. By defining the indentation in pixels, the paragraph indentation in some ebooks was so minimal that the paragraphs just ran together and couldn't be differentiated.
I find it ironic that the ebooks being sold by independent (e.g. self-published) authors to be flawless in their display while the ebooks from the big publishing houses with all their resources are all messed up.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
Or, the GUI tools aren't that bad, but the change the goddam things every couple months. The file managers, window behaviors, drag-and-drop behaviorss, where the links are located, the menu layouts...it all changes, even within the same distro, over a time span of years. Compare that to XP which has been the same for 10+ years. So when I use Linux, I use the command line a lot...at least they don't change that (too much).
My wife: honey, how I do "X"?
me: "remembers how he did that 3 years ago, but now every fucking thing in the GUI is different, the buttons are on the opposite side of the window, the menus are completely different, the network manager is completely different, the sound system is new, and the program I used to use no longer seems to exist anymore"
me: says "fuck it" and uses the command line.
You mean a "usability expert". UI designers make things pretty, usability experts make sure the user never notices the pretty things.
Usability requires boring (anything that draws unneeded attention is bad) and efficient, which simply isn't something many open source contributers want to do.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This entire article seems to be yet another case of "design guys can't be bothered" and "management isn't interested".
It's a management failure and there's really no need to slander programmers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You have to be very careful about "getting a UI designer" -- many of them have UIDD (UI Designer Disease) and will take a functioning UI and layer on more stuff until it becomes hard to use. Recent battle: UIDD-guy -- "that UI is to complicated -- too many buttons on the main screen"; me -- "but the users use every one of those buttons on a regular basis"; UIDD-guy "but if you just put them in menus you could add other functionality to the program without adding more clutter"; me --"the users don't have any additional functionality requests, they just want to get the job done. You are here because someone higher up decided that everything needs a UI designer review"; UIDD-guy "well this certainly does need to be changed"; me "ok, watch the users use the tool -- the flow goes from upper left to lower right as they do their work, there's no back-hitching, there are no "extra clicks" involved with them getting their work done -- how are menus going to help this?" ; UIDD-guy "Menus are just better because it's less visually taxing. Clearly you aren't listening to me." Months later someone else re-wrote the UI according to UIDD-guy's suggestions. Users revolted and were ticked enough to actually measure throughput and number of clicks. The redesigned and simplified version took 22% longer with 35% more clicks -- so yes with the redesign users could do more clicks per minute -- but it often took two clicks instead of one. UIDD guy still thinks its better because it's cleaner. UIDD is a crippling disorder.
I apologize for unloading on you, but you've just hit a major peeve.
I am a programmer. I recognize that Graphic/UI design is a separate skill from programming. The problem is, often I get handed a project with no UI specs. I always point it out (because I am sick and tired of the "programmers are poor designers shit") but no resources are assigned - so people end up with what I think is a good idea.
The root cause is not your perceived programmer hubris, it is the cheapness of the upper levels setting project budgets. The thing about programmers is that good programmers are excellent problem solvers - so you can ask us to do anything - and it will get done - some things better than others.
Oh, and you will find that programmers are the most logical people around - it is the rest of you that are irrational.
Personally, I don't believe in design by focus groups. If you want a horrible design where a million confusing badly-designed functions are all crammed into one page/screen, then a focus group is the way to go.
Users are really good at knowing what annoys them, but they generally don't understand what the good available solutions are. As a consequence, they will invariably insist on slight tweaks to the way they have always done things, and that every new function gets added to their favorite screen, page, or menu. The end result is invariably the UI equivalent of the worst spaghetti-code hacks.
A really good design requires someone with the insight to see what the basic problems to be addressed are, what all the available tools are on your platform to solve such problems, and to design the entire system around that. No committe will ever be capable of that feat.
What you need to take from users is what tasks they need done, and how they are used to doing them. The design then needs to be created by a designer, who has the insight to see what could be made easier for them, and will generally act as their advocate. This is the one thing I felt Steve Jobs always got right.
There's an old, well-honored principle in Unix that explains why it's hard to design a good GUI, a good language, a good interface set or even a good command-line interface: Easy tasks should be easy, hard tasks should at least be possible.
It's easy to do one or the other. It's surprising hard to do both.
--dave
I think this originated as a criteria for the old Bourne shell, and it certainly was part of perl and Elliotte Rusty Harold's XOM.
davecb@spamcop.net
Every penny they spend on typesetting and layout is a penny lost in (very meagre) profit ...
Spare me. I've looked at the numbers book publishers put out, and they're obviously full of shit. Did you know even textbook publishers, those guys who think 200 hours of editing and new material between printings justifies a new $220 edition every three years, swear up and down that they make a 1% profit?
1 fucking percent? Are they joking? What other non-commodity business makes 1% and survives? For that matter, almost no commodity businesses make that little, either.
Furthermore, if 1% was true, then ebooks would've driven them out of business by now. I see plenty of ebooks at 40-80% of their print prices. The printing, binding and shipping is only ~10% of a paper book's cost, so a discount of 20% or more on something that usually replaces a print sale- when your profit on print-only editions was just 1% - pretty much means you're fucked before you sell a single copy.
Every e-book, every sale price at Amazon, puts the lie to their claims of 1% profits. Just because Amazon and B&N border on monopsony doesn't mean printers can magically afford to lose money on every sale.
How was this modded "insightful"? There's no insight here, It's so bad it isn't even wrong.
...but I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way.
I hope you're kidding. Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem
What command line problem? My pre-teen children use Linux, and they don't touch a command line. Ever. I use Linux and I use the command line frequently, but I don't see it as a "problem" but as a path to efficiency, both in creating interfaces (I can create a command-line app much faster than a GIU-based app) and getting my work done (I can restart Apache from a command line in half the time that I can restart IIS by navigating through the GIU). Show me the problem.
Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.
And a windows system with any third-party database or web server, or a set of third-party domain administration tools is... what, exactly? A hodge-podge. I would wager that a system running IIS or MSSQL is equally a hodgepodge under the hood, but the branding is more consistent.
user space stuff isn't tested with rigor to work 100% of the time like kernel mode stuff
Citation desperately needed. I think that several million long-term Apache installations on various Linux, Unix, and Windows servers would beg to differ.
But overall, as a programmer, I do take offense to not knowing how to design a UI.
Why? I have my areas of expertise. I'm not offended that someone understands a discipline better than I do and I take their inputs with gratitude.
I know perfectly well how to.
I have worked with people like you. You don't know nearly as well as you think you do. Sure, you may be able to design an interface perfect for you, but creating something that works well for everybody is an art that few people master. I think your "theory" about design is a bit too pat and self-serving.
I think he was referring to the Office-logo-style menu that you get when you disable the regular menu bar.
Really, though, the "Ribbon" is a gimmick. All it is is (1) redesigned, reorganized menus and (2) the menu is always "down", and context-shifts automatically.
The benefit of point (1) is highly dependent on how intuitive the reorganized menus are. Naturally, anyone who's used to the old menus will hate them for changing things. However, it does at least seem that they got this much right; it's really not hard to pick up the organization of the new menu system.
Point (2), on the other hand, is an "in-your-face" sort of behavior that you may or may not like. Users who don't know what they're doing might benefit from having the menu right there in front of them. Personally, however, I just collapse the Ribbon (double-click it) so that it acts like regular pull-down menus (albeit arranged horizontally instead of vertically). If I'm doing stuff that requires a lot of menu interaction (text formatting in Word) I might lock it open (again, double-click it) but in general I don't want it in my way.
If you took nothing else away from my post, hopefully you caught the fact that double-clicking the Ribbon makes it go away.
Oh, and the silver theme is much better than the default blue.
Since TFA is slashdotted, I'm just responding to what I could glean from the /. summary.
The two most popular ebook formats (epub and mobi/azw) are both basically just a collection of html and css files put together into a zip file. The html is extremely limited. For example, in kindle (azw) format, all images are displayed in the center of the page. So, for example, if you want to put an equation rendered as a bitmap embedded in a paragraph of text, you basically can't do it. In most cases, you cannot use javascript. Creating an ebook is also exactly like writing html for the web in that you have to make it work on any device. For instance, a Kindle 2's screen is 260x311 and a Kindle DX is 372x511. You cannot embed fonts and know that it will work on all devices. (E.g., epub 2 allows fonts to be embedded using CSS2 @font-face rule, but the spec doesn't require devices to support it, and many don't.) The CPU on these things is designed for low power consumption, not for heavy processing.
So, given these resources, there really isn't much that you can do creatively in designing an ebook. If it's a novel, it's pretty much going to look like all other novels. It's in a font that the hardware vendor optimized for legibility on that device.
It's true that the formats are becoming more sophisticated. For example, epub 3 (which is not yet supported by any devices), includes mathml, which will allow math and science textbooks to be made into ebooks for the first time. Javascripts is coming.
But be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. Are we really looking forward to reading Wuthering Heights formatted beautifully by a professional designed -- for a screen that's narrower than the one on our own device? How about opening a book and finding that the title of contents is an image, forcing you to guess where to click in order to start reading? How about animations that you can't skip? How about CPU-intensive features that freeze up your device for 30 seconds? What about fonts that looked great on the designer's device, but that look absolutely horrible on ours?
And there are going to be compatibility nightmares that will make the browser wars look like a child's tea party. For example, epub 3 includes mathml, but it doesn't say that devices must support mathml, it just says that they can. So publishers will be selling one version of a calculus textbook for the Nook 17xi (which supports mathml), but a different version for the Nook 16lx (which doesn't) -- and of course an eyeball-bleeding epub 2 version for "legacy" devices, like that Nook 14 that you bought way back in 2014. Oh, you switched to an iPad? Cool, but you find out that the epub 3+mathml version of the book that you bought for your Nook doesn't work on your iPad, because Apple hasn't gotten around to implementing mathml. But you can buy an iPad version instead, only $187!
Find free books.
Oh yes, don't use the LaTeX' standard "book" package by Lamport. I completely forgot about that because it's so old. But I don't think it's fair to judge by stuff from the 80s. We don't do that with Word either :).
There are much better packages for a long time, like "memoir" or "komascript". But those mainly change the page layout and the default settings for fonts. For the cool microtypography stuff you also need something more recent than Knuth's original TeX compiler, like luatex (which shall finally get to 1.0 in 2012) or pdftex.
In short, just install TeXLive or MiKTeX and use that.
UnNetHack: NetHack Improved!
Programmers also think they know how to name things as well. The... GIMP? Really? Try to explain to your employer that you want everyone in the department to use the GIMP to edit images. Then you can try to bring in the GNONORREA, RTARD, and MYBYTCH office suite components, all really well built - with names designed to send you to sensitivity training and a fine permanent billet in the data entry department (if they don't fire you outright).
But Nintendo somehow managed to make it socially acceptable to announce that you're going home to play with your Wii.
Linux is easier to use, because you can set it up in whatever way you find easiest to use. If you like the command line, then Windows is actually harder to use than Linux. If you like virtual desktops, Windows is harder to use than Linux. If you like to automate your workflow, Windows is harder to use than Linux.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Linux is difficult to use because of the command line problem, yes, but more so the problem is that Linux is a hodge podge of software that need not work well together.
No, Linux is difficult to use because it is a hodge-podge of software that works well together. Newbies take annoyance on the fact that sometimes you need to use a completely different software to finish your job, and that's just bad. They think that the software isn't good enough if it can't do everything they need it to do. They want completely integrated solutions to everything.
Of course, the pros know that it's better to just have separate tools that by themselves work much better than whatever hacked-together crap you will integrate in the software. And, incidentally, that is also true for other operating systems, on all fields of work. You don't just pick a piece of software to do your job; you do your job by picking the right pieces of software for the tasks at hand. A subtle but crucial difference.
It's just that it takes some user conditioning ("No, you may need to use separate app for that part of the job, and since I do that every day without a hitch, it's not as painful as you think, trust me"), and user education ("There are several apps that can do that part of the job, like X, Y and Z, but you can search for more options using website W and package manager P.")
You need to explain to them how much cheaper a web designer is vs. a web developer.
Which gets me back to a question about the premise of this article.
Publishers are using programmer time instead of editor/artist time? This has to be costing them a fortune.
I think someone is using a broken definition of 'programmer'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I read the first sentence and thought "wow, he got modded troll, must be some pissed off programmers. Understandable." Then I read the second sentence.
Just look at the state of Linux and most open source programs. They might have the specific functionality, but they seriously lack in UI and design.
That's unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft is the one with the worst design. Yeah, Windows is prettier than kde but kde is far easier to use and far more intuitive. It took a month to figure out where to shut off the "tap to click" feature (bad bad BAD design, tap to click is a horror) in Windows; it wasn't in the Control Panel where you would expect it to be. It only took a minute using kde's "control panel". As to the CP itself, that design sure went to hell in Win 7.
There's the infamous MS double click. I absolutely HATED that back in the 90s when I was teaching people how to use Windows. That was the single hardest thing about Windows for folks to learn -- and it's completely unnecessary; your mouse has TWO buttons. MS was copying Apple, whose mice only had one button at the time. They're finally offering single click selection in Win 7, but it's far from polished.
Then there's the start button. "How do I stop the computer?" "Press 'start'". Yeah, that's logical and reasonable. They finally followed kde's lead here, too, in Win 7 because instead of "start" it now has a Windows logo, just like kde has a kde logo and has had for a decade or more.
On top of that linux geeks fail to understand that people don't want to use command line to do tasks.
I feel sorry for you. You're either a pathetic troll or incredibly ignorant. I haven't been at a command prompt in Linux for years, but I have been at a Windows command prompt recently.
That's because programmers cannot think logically like most people do.
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard so far this year. Why don't you try a GNAA next time? Far more real looking. Moron.
Good example is Ribbon UI. Ribbon is actually a great step forward in terms of usability.
I haven't used the ribbon (we have old software at work), but from what I've read it's almost universally despised and has made some folks switch to Open Office despite OO's shortcomings.
BTW, the paragraph I refer to reads like a press release straight out of Redmond. If you're shilling, you're doing an offal job of it.
Also, considering that geeks usually complain how people don't get them or they're bullied, they seem to have a huge "I'm better and more intelligent than the rest of people" complex.
Nice. Now, sonny, why don't you run off to the AARP site and bitch about your money going to Social Security? Asshole.
Free Martian Whores!
The real issue *is* a programming one, most books are typeset by non-programmers and non-artists - Just like normal books, and normal newspapers so they need tools that will allow them to produce book that look as good as possible with no effort or time ...these are seemingly non-existent ...
Calibre *really* shows that it was created by programmers (yes, I know, duh). It's such a versatile program for editing (things like content flow and structure), converting between formats, and getting your new version on whatever device it's needed. It has an effective but obtuse UI itself, and shows little to no effort put into beautifying eBooks. I am always satisfied that my converted eBooks are easy to read on my android phone, but also always a little disappointed in their lack of aesthetic.
What is needed is a modern typesetter profession
Webdesigners?
The article in the Toronto Review of Books has at least three spelling errors and typos, including the common error "free reign" instead of "free rein". (That's supposed to be a horse term.) The body text is in a sans-serif font, while the headings are in a serif font. The body leading is huge, almost double-spaced. This publication is in no position to talk about layout. Besides, how much good layout can you do on a tiny screen that updates slowly?
As for the eBook Alice, colorizing the Tenniel illustrations is bad enough, and animating them is just tacky. What next, 3D? If you want a good version of Alice, get The Annotated Alice, which is not currently available as an eBook and would look terrible on the tiny screen.
Exactly. My son started using Linux at about 18 months, and did his first install a week after his 2nd birthday. Given that he didn't learn to read until just before he turned 3, I think it is safe to say that there is no 'command line problem'.
Mutliple intelligences is bunk, the reason why most artists don't program and most programmers don't create art is purely one of interest and effort, if they would put effort into crossing that gap I doubt very much that it would be unusual to see people doing both.
AFAICT it's the graphic designers that have been fucking up the UI in recent times. Programmers typically want an efficient tool that gets things done, it probably isn't pretty, but the interface probably doesn't trick the user by hiding elements that might lead to an ugly UI.
Is it really that rare, or are you just looking for love in all the wrong places?
John Brockman: the man with a three digit speed dial
We've had superlative typography since the 1980s, but instead the world standardized on Widow Maker and other typographic abominations. Economic man noted the score, and the rest is WYG will make your eyes bleed. Then Steve figured out how to pour feminine charms back into the genie bottle by making the terms of engagement non-negotiable. That's one way to do it. Who knows what user interface nightmares ensue once you begin speaking with each other.
If it's asking too much to straddle two culture, how about being insanely good at just one? From How (La)TeX changed the face of Mathematics
Big mistakes people should stop making:
1. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.
2. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.
3. Worrying too much about formatting and not enough about content.
Tyler Cowen: Be suspicious of stories
Tyler has a nice riff there about how ditching the "good vs evil" depiction of world events immediately raises your IQ by ten points. There are many writers out there who could raise their IQ by an additional ten points investing less in glassy gassy.
Most artists that I know are not particularly technical. Most of the programmers I know are not particularly artistic. Creative, yes, they're both creative activities. The theory of multiple intelligences holds, but the two paths rarely seem to cross.
And most people overall are neither particularly technical nor particularly artistic; thus you'd expect the combination to be quite rare just by chance. GPP said, "I'm pretty sure the groups of people who are extremely artistically deficient and who program are not correlated in any strong way" and that seems like a reasonable enough statement. There are a few people who can do good art, a few people who can do good programming, and a very few people who are good at both.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
No, this is mischaracterizing the problem. The problem isn't that people fail to understand "the user". The problem is that people think there is a single entity called "the user" whom they can design to satisfy. Programmers think "the user" is like them, so they make a UI which suits themselves. Designers think "the user" is like them, so they make a very different UI which suits themselves. Then they argue with each other about how they are right and the other is wrong. TFA is just another volley in this pointless war of blame.
The reality is that there is no single "the user". Users come in all different shapes and sizes. Some like ribbons, others like menus, and others still like command lines. If you design your UI to placate one of these types of users, you will alienate the others. The holy grail of a single UI which everyone likes is unattainable, so we shouldn't even bother trying.
Instead, I think the best way to approach UI design is like the presets for your car seat. Each user can customize the position of their car seat exactly how they like, and store it in a preset. But a different user can customize the seat they way they like, and store it in a different preset. In a similar way, I think UIs should come with several standard default presets - ribbon mode, menu mode, etc. You can pick the type of UI you want, tweak some elements if you prefer them different than the default, and save it as your own UI preset. That way when you work on your computer, the UI is to your liking. But if someone else borrows your computer, instead of getting all confused by your UI customizations, they can just click on one of the default presets (or load their own preset which they're carrying on their USB stick) and use something more comfortable to them. Microsoft has kinda done this with Windows 7. The file explorer interface is button-centric. But if you hit alt, the old menus appear.
In publishing space, designers and publishers are worse offenders than programmers. Look back at the history of HTML. When Tim Berners-Lee (a programmer) first came up with HTML, it was completely user-centric. The only thing the author got to "design" what text and pictures to include. The author had zero control over how it would be displayed on the user's screen - that was controlled entirely by the user (or rather, the user's browser).
Designers and publishers didn't like this. They (rightfully) wanted certain formatting, like the amount of indent at the beginning of a paragraph, to be consistent. So HTML was gradually extended to allow you to "hard-code" certain types of formatting. But then designers started to go overboard, insisting that their web page appear as similar as possible on every user's screen. Trying to view a web page on an 800x600 laptop screen? Too bad, the page is optimized for 1024x768, and I'm not going to let you change it to fit in your display. The ultimate culmination of this was the flash website. Where the menus, pages, pictures, were all coded in flash instead of in HTML, so that the site looked exactly as the designer wanted on every display, regardless of how well or how poorly the design worked on your particular display.
So HTML (or rather, HTML/flash) in its short history has spanned both extremes. Zero author control and total user control, to total author control and zero user control. And has now settled on CSS which gives lots of author control, but with the right tools (e.g. firebug) offers lots of user control. A site I visited insisted on formatting the text as centered, so I just modified the CSS in firebug to display it as left justified. (This example only covers pub
I mostly agree with you. I disagree on the "but you have to aim your pointer at the button" being less explicit that typing. When you type, you are pressing buttons just the same. You still have to aim a pointer at a button and press it. Minor quibble, but still there.
I would add to the issue that a large part of it is also a culture of proud aggressive ignorance. We see this in many subjects, but computers seem to be one of the worst. I suspect because of when they were presented to the public. Your 9 year old cousin is a good example. People are told that "computers are hard". This meme has become so ingrained into our culture that people will go out of their way to "not understand" them. How many of the adults that claim "computers are hard" are going to acknowledge that their claim amounts to being below the mental level of a 9 year old.
I see this with the "Linux is hard" claims that we always hear. Even from people involved with computers. At the age of 1, my son was using a Linux PC just fine. A week after his 2nd birthday, he did a completely unassisted install of Ubuntu. While there are lots of fun snaky insults to throw at people who claim they are dumber than a 2 year old, the reality is that they are just being aggressively ignorant.
Well, Linux is NOT Unix. It does, however, implement a Unix-like environment, but it is not itself Unix. For that, it would have to be certified as a Unix.
OSX is certified as a Unix, and therefore is Unix. iOS, not sure - possible, but not necessarily.
Android is Linux, and as Linux is not Unix, neither is Android; and Android just goes to show that you put a nice GUI on top of Linux and everyone can use it. The main thing holding Linux back from the mainstream has been the inferior quality of the GUIs and expectation that old software continues to run but most people (not necessarily companies - most anyone that grew up in the 1980's and later has been primarily in a monoculture for computers - namely Windows on x86).
Linux doesn't require that a command-line interface be present (see Android). It's just that most Linux users find a command-line to be extremely useful as well - even when they run Windows or Mac. Yes, I use the command-line on every platform I utilize (except Android since it doesn't have one); I also typically install GnuWin32 on Windows systems so I can get a somewhat functional Windows environment (no, powershell doesn't cut it).
I've also introduced a number of people to Linux+KDE - most recently my computer illiterate dad. He won't ever touch the command-line; but he's quite happily now using Linux.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
That's a little like saying, "Mmm, Windows Vista. Letting programmers program has been a freaking disaster, because they always seem to pick bloat over efficiency."
When really that's not the problem. It's not UI designers per se, but it's bad UI designers functioning under misguided management and unreasonable demands. A good UI designer will use some "Ooooo, shiney" when it can be use appropriately, but not for the sake of itself. Shininess can actually be used to enhance usability.
2 cookies is 1 too many, now he has diabetes.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I remember the same type of discussion here on /. regarding print vs web. People were complaining about websites that looked like they had scanned in their brochures, and for some that was literally true. It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same. The old school still wants to treat the screen as if it were a piece of paper. God forbid that the person doing the reading might want, or need, a different font size. That might disrupt the carefully chosen 1.2345 microsnick paragraph spacing.
I recently downloaded my first iBook to my iPad: The Yellow Submarine. (I'm a long time kindle guy.) First impression was: wow this is gorgeous and shows what an ebook can be. My 2nd impression was: holy crap I can't read this small font, let me bump up the... oh wait it's hard coded. I can see where it really would have messed up the flow of that book if I had been able to change the font. I think the ebook industry needs to have that spark where a new approach to layout is discovered that, right now, no one seems to have.
I will admit that I don't understand much about typography and layout. Most of my reading doesn't require anything more complicated than what can be produced on a typewriter. What I do see, is that we are at a point in time where the screen is taking over, and the print industry is struggling with a change that threatens to leave it behind.
Frank
He went so far as to say that everything's faster with a GUI, and we all know that isn't true.
It may be true for the geek who has mastered the grammar and syntax of the command line or memorized all the keyboard shorcuts.
Is it Slash foward or Slash back?
The GUI will tell you --- maybe even show you --- "What Is Going To Happen Next."
It can and should give you a graceful line of retreat, more than one chance to recover from a mistake.
"Continue? Yes or No?"
"Undo This."
To the average user, look at Apples red X window decoration (used FAR more frequently than the control panel) versus Windows red X window decoration. That would be exhibit B.
The "gimp" GIMP was named for was the leather-masked slave kept in the basement of the shop in "Pulp Fiction". The alternate meaning means "crippled" as in a "gimp" leg" or "the kid is a gimp". The intended connotation is horrifyingly stupid - a good parallel would be your word processor - the "TWINK". Equally intended to be sexually childish. And named to fail.
The connotation is obviously intended to provoke at least and offend at most.It costs nothing to rename it something less adolescent.
And don't get me started about OGG - dear gods, why???? Name it something related to sound, at least. Obscurity for obscurity's sake is a nerd's joy, but death for the format. Stop gigglesnorting and name it .TUN or .GSND or .FREE, a good name for a good product, named to evoke what it is, rather than crack up your fellow Pterry followers. And it isn't even funny to us. It makes no sense on any level than being intentionally irrelevant for the sheer joy of making people walk away.
Usability comes from the following:
Usability an art informed by cognitive science and engineering. What Linux distros tend to lack is coordinated discipline. They also get user feedback from a skewed population. Android gets feedback from a wide distribution of humanity and it shows. Ubuntu's mix of feedback shifted away from l33ts toward the mainstream and that drove them to make radical changes. Those changes may not serve any user base very well at the moment (I hate them) but they are clearly an attempt to reach out to the average user THROUGH DESIGN. If they keep processing feedback they have a good chance of refining that POS into something really great.
I'm typing this on a Macbook Air. I've used Ubuntu on a laptop since it came out and other linux variants since 1998. I switched for work purposes to Mac and, as another poster said, "The emperor has no clothes." It's not easier to use. It's prettier, but there are FAR more functions that require foreknowledge to execute on a Mac. There are ways to make a gesture on the multi-touch pad that make shit disappear! I'm a power user type guy so I dug in and learned all kinds of wonderful tricks but I can't imagine how grandma reacts to that shit. I think she just calls herself stupid.
As for the original post. Book design is a really ancient form of design informed by a great depth of tradition and knowledge. Unfortunately, the world of print has run screaming from the world of digital interfaces. SOME of that print knowledge has come over but not much. Print design theory is PRECISELY counter to the idea of the separation of form and content. The whole challenge in making a beautiful book is to UNIFY form and content. eBooks let you change the size and type of the font.... Some let you turn it sideways and read wide instead of long.... All that freedom DESTROYS book design. That freedom comes from giving the user choices about FORM that can't always be predicted and therefore can't be unified and previewed. What this calls for is a NEW form of design that brings book design and UI design together into a structure that benefits from all the behaviors listed in those bullet points at the top of this post.
Every rule has more than one consequence.