No amount of money is going to get parents in failing schools to care about their kid's education.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the majority of families in failing schools have more than one kid's education to care about, and that's probably the problem.
Not true at all. An acronym is simply the first letter of each (or most) word(s) in a phrase. They are often pronounceable, for convenience. FLIR (Fleer) is much shorter than Forward Looking Infra-red Radar (nice acronym inside of an acronym). Others are not pronounceable, such as FCS (Future Combat Systems) or NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical), but are still easier to say the acronym than the entire phrase.
A bouncing icon that indicates an app is loading is far less intrusive than the typical Windows dialog that: a) pops up without invite, b) takes focus of your mouse/keyboard (so when you are typing, you are now typing in a window you didn't ask for), c) doesn't go away until you acknowledge it, and d) restarts your computer without asking you (like when you go home from work at the end of the day to come back the next day to a rebooted computer with none of your work saved).
For MOST people, it is about the quality of the end product. Apple is consistently atop the quality and usability rankings since, well, forever. I've been a happy customer since the 90s.
As much as this article is a troll for Open Source and bait for the fanboys, it is pretty close on #3. Open source just isn't good enough to justify the lack of cost.
I'm not sure my post above or TFA says anything about "improving code". I think you are right--this is an article about designing UI widgets better, and I don't think it claims to be anything else...or does it? Maybe I'm missing something or not reading into it enough?
No I get it, but evidently you don't. What I'm telling you is that faced with a bad-but-nobody-can-tell-why interface versus designing it well from the get go is preferred to the the current software dev paradigm of UIs being total after thought. This is EXACTLY what causes unacceptable delays in product development--not some wishy washy design guy complaining about how something looks.
The fact this thread exists, yet we still have tons of bad UI design every day in our lives, proves that too many people (including yourself) dismiss the importance of good design.
Usability is only one aspect. I'm saying that software engineers and developers dismiss it in favor of their own prejudices, because they simply don't understand good UI design and development. Those of us in design do, AND you don't see is going off on how insignificant code is, or what a stupid waste of time it is to develop requirements. We understand our piece in the dev process and grow tired of others in the dev cycle being clinically narcissistic and egocentric about their pieces of the process.
It's a balance and a trade-off, and you are demonstrating the exact attitude that gives us such crappy, unusable software.
I work in the field of design (mostly designing computer-based training) and can tell you that your sentiment is more common than not. Most people never think of design or how it impacts their daily lives.
As a designer, you may come up with nice solutions to problems through intuition and experience, but nevertheless, you are not a usability expert or an engineer.
You'll start noticing poorly designed things EVERYWHERE and wonder why it wasn't made better.
And often there are good answers for why things are designed the way they are, even though a "designer" like you might have thought that another way was better.
You are wrong, and then sometimes right. I am a usability expert. My job consists of designing and developing UI elements and interfaces used in computer-based training systems. Graphic design (which I think you are thinking) is one small subset of skills I posses.
The part you are sometimes right is that stuff might be designed a certain way for other reasons. These other reasons are sometimes valid, but usually just due to indifference. Many people, as evident in this thread, just don't care about interface and design. They simply don't comprehend the benefits and importance of a good interface. I understand as well that sometimes a UI redesign is not worth the costs (but I'd argue had it been done correctly in the first place, it doesn't cost any more to do it right from the get go). I don't "think" another way is better--I can properly and clearly identify WHY something would be better another way. It isn't nearly as subjective as you think.
At my work, the elevator has two rows of buttons. The second row of buttons (the top one, for example) has a "1" to the left a "3" to the right. So if I push it, will it take me to the first or third floor? You have to examine ALL the other buttons to figure out which row of numbers that row of buttons pertains to. The easy solution is to but the buttons on the outside and the floor numbers on the inside. The first button on the far left side would have a "1" to its right, then there would be a "3" next to it, with a button to its right. It would be impossible to confuse which button goes with which floor that way.
Oh, and for your work, they should have a door that opens by either pushing, or pulling, from either the left or right side...simple;-)
Your post reminds me of the guy who criticized the 2nd generation iPod because he couldn't find the "on" button. Uh..you just touch any button and it turns on. All you have to do is try ANY button. That is intuitive, because once you touch ANYTHING, it turns on. If you want to just sit there and try to guess without trying anything, then yeah, nothing will ever be intuitive.
Here's another take. The iPods (in all their variants) are so intuitive that I can't even give directions to somebody on how to operate one because I don't know how to unless I'm holding it in my hand (if that makes any sense).
Again, being a "very technically inclined person", you probably bring years of technology expectations to how the device should work (i.e. like many of the other poorly designed gadgets you've probably used over the years).
Sorry, but I think any device that can ship with an instruction booklet that only needs a few illustrations (and no text) is a pretty good design feat, especially for all the stuff it can do.
Well I'm in one of those disparaged academic disciplines that is constantly lampooned around here, and all I'm saying is that just because you aren't in chosen field X, doesn't mean that X is "total BS" like software development tends to consider those of us in HFE/Graphic Design/HCI, etc. (Good thing I'm not a writer..holy run-on sentence batman.)
I think a big reason this blog entry exists is precisely because good design ISN'T obvious, as evidenced by the amount of bad design we see every day.
I like your reasons for the existence of bad design. The over-zealous guy (I call them my Adobe Employees) that is always trying to make cutting edge stuff in our training that is so fancy that it: a) confuses the learners and b) cripples the computer's cpu cycles. I'd another designer type--the "doesn't matter" guy who just goes out and grabs a random crappy MS clipart object and slaps it on there because he's so concerned with the background code that he doesn't care about usability.
Lemme guess--you're a developer, right? I'm amazed that so many people on slashdot are so fervently anti-good-design anything...as if good design is relative and not worth the time and money...even though it is the #1 feature that most people consider when purchasing something. Most people look at something, see if it has the bare minimum requirements for what they want, then pick the one that looks/works the nicest (to them) for the best price.
You do realize that the best universities all have fields of study solely dedicated to UI/design/Human Factors Engineering etc., don't you? If it isn't important, than how can so many of us have lucrative and rewarding careers in it?
Furthermore, why do the people who just don't "get it" when it comes to design spend so much time slamming it? I can't wrap my brain around any code other than some simplistic Action Scripting and Visual Basic, but I don't bitch an moan about how unimportant programming is to me.
I'll start with a Google search for "Asperger's Syndrome". I'm not being funny or mean, just saying that icon abstraction is a weakness for them.
Since a LOT of software developers display varying degrees of Asperberger's, it is no wonder that the UIs in software are often lost on the common user. This is also why there are Human Factors Engineers and Software Developers...very few people can do both well.
Each company's respective set of hieroglyphics is only as good as their respective Human Factors Engineers have made them. Some companies put more work (spend more money, hire better talent, emphasize that aspect, whatever) into the UI than others. It is a cornerstone of Apple products, for example, and often an after-thought for Microsoft products. Both companies are very successful and make lots of money, so as long as your hieroglyphics are speaking to the right customer, then I think it's ok.
Sorry the rest of us aren't as intelligent as you and needed an article that was articulate and persuasive in its repetition--you know, those elements of good writing we were taught in high school and college? It's nice to see a technical article on slashdot actually demonstrate some literary skill for once instead of dumping it in order to make more room in one's brain for abstract lines of code.
Really. That was a very nice article that made me think about some things I've never really considered.
I work in the field of design (mostly designing computer-based training) and can tell you that your sentiment is more common than not. Most people never think of design or how it impacts their daily lives.
Because of this, I always suggest two books: The Design of Every Day Things and The Non-Designer's Design Book.
Once you read these two books, you'll never look at things the same way again. You'll start noticing poorly designed things EVERYWHERE and wonder why it wasn't made better. You'll even formulate your own ways of making it better, which in turn (generally speaking) makes your own work better.
I tried an all-words interface recently for an interactive training module at work. I tried to model it after the Adobe Light Room interface. I liked it a lot, but it didn't get a good reception. Seems our business dev people are more concerned with teh shiny than they are functionality.
There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.
I disagree completely. As a matter of fact, your next sentences proves that there is such a thing as intuitive interfaces by the fact that an intuitive interface is also "discoverable".
However, that does NOT mean that intuitive interfaces are derived from previous knowledge. This is why people who jump to OSX from Windows have such a hard time with the "intuitive" interface of OSX. They grew used to a poor interface (Window Whatever) and then brought those bad habits with them.
A truly intuitive interface is one that a user with little experience (not enough to be persuaded to try something out of habit) can just figure out. It's also more than just icons--it's system hierarchy, interfaces, dialogs, visual/audio/animation cues etc. I think iPods/iPhones are good examples of this, since most users are enamored by those products, most likely because they are easy to figure out without having any reference to compare them too (no prior experience).
Well, in slashdot land, there's only bickering and arguing, so you are right. However, I liked the article and would like to discuss its merits further.
I misunderstood your post then. It sounded to me like you were inferring that the current state of government (i.e. that portrayed in the article) is as bad as that portrayed in the novel 1984.
I'm simply saying we're not there (yet), and to posit otherwise is a bit tinfoilhatish.
No, I'm saying the guy's post is over-the-top, not the book. It is pure hyperbole to compare the current state of government to that represented in the book 1984.
Slashdot Mirror
No amount of money is going to get parents in failing schools to care about their kid's education.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the majority of families in failing schools have more than one kid's education to care about, and that's probably the problem.
It's not pronounceable so it's not an acronym.
Not true at all. An acronym is simply the first letter of each (or most) word(s) in a phrase. They are often pronounceable, for convenience. FLIR (Fleer) is much shorter than Forward Looking Infra-red Radar (nice acronym inside of an acronym). Others are not pronounceable, such as FCS (Future Combat Systems) or NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical), but are still easier to say the acronym than the entire phrase.
A bouncing icon that indicates an app is loading is far less intrusive than the typical Windows dialog that: a) pops up without invite, b) takes focus of your mouse/keyboard (so when you are typing, you are now typing in a window you didn't ask for), c) doesn't go away until you acknowledge it, and d) restarts your computer without asking you (like when you go home from work at the end of the day to come back the next day to a rebooted computer with none of your work saved).
For MOST people, it is about the quality of the end product. Apple is consistently atop the quality and usability rankings since, well, forever. I've been a happy customer since the 90s.
As much as this article is a troll for Open Source and bait for the fanboys, it is pretty close on #3. Open source just isn't good enough to justify the lack of cost.
I'm not sure my post above or TFA says anything about "improving code". I think you are right--this is an article about designing UI widgets better, and I don't think it claims to be anything else...or does it? Maybe I'm missing something or not reading into it enough?
No I get it, but evidently you don't. What I'm telling you is that faced with a bad-but-nobody-can-tell-why interface versus designing it well from the get go is preferred to the the current software dev paradigm of UIs being total after thought. This is EXACTLY what causes unacceptable delays in product development--not some wishy washy design guy complaining about how something looks.
The fact this thread exists, yet we still have tons of bad UI design every day in our lives, proves that too many people (including yourself) dismiss the importance of good design.
Usability is only one aspect. I'm saying that software engineers and developers dismiss it in favor of their own prejudices, because they simply don't understand good UI design and development. Those of us in design do, AND you don't see is going off on how insignificant code is, or what a stupid waste of time it is to develop requirements. We understand our piece in the dev process and grow tired of others in the dev cycle being clinically narcissistic and egocentric about their pieces of the process.
It's a balance and a trade-off, and you are demonstrating the exact attitude that gives us such crappy, unusable software.
I work in the field of design (mostly designing computer-based training) and can tell you that your sentiment is more common than not. Most people never think of design or how it impacts their daily lives.
As a designer, you may come up with nice solutions to problems through intuition and experience, but nevertheless, you are not a usability expert or an engineer.
You'll start noticing poorly designed things EVERYWHERE and wonder why it wasn't made better.
And often there are good answers for why things are designed the way they are, even though a "designer" like you might have thought that another way was better.
You are wrong, and then sometimes right. I am a usability expert. My job consists of designing and developing UI elements and interfaces used in computer-based training systems. Graphic design (which I think you are thinking) is one small subset of skills I posses.
The part you are sometimes right is that stuff might be designed a certain way for other reasons. These other reasons are sometimes valid, but usually just due to indifference. Many people, as evident in this thread, just don't care about interface and design. They simply don't comprehend the benefits and importance of a good interface. I understand as well that sometimes a UI redesign is not worth the costs (but I'd argue had it been done correctly in the first place, it doesn't cost any more to do it right from the get go). I don't "think" another way is better--I can properly and clearly identify WHY something would be better another way. It isn't nearly as subjective as you think.
At my work, the elevator has two rows of buttons. The second row of buttons (the top one, for example) has a "1" to the left a "3" to the right. So if I push it, will it take me to the first or third floor? You have to examine ALL the other buttons to figure out which row of numbers that row of buttons pertains to. The easy solution is to but the buttons on the outside and the floor numbers on the inside. The first button on the far left side would have a "1" to its right, then there would be a "3" next to it, with a button to its right. It would be impossible to confuse which button goes with which floor that way.
Oh, and for your work, they should have a door that opens by either pushing, or pulling, from either the left or right side...simple ;-)
...because they live in England.
Your post reminds me of the guy who criticized the 2nd generation iPod because he couldn't find the "on" button. Uh..you just touch any button and it turns on. All you have to do is try ANY button. That is intuitive, because once you touch ANYTHING, it turns on. If you want to just sit there and try to guess without trying anything, then yeah, nothing will ever be intuitive.
Here's another take. The iPods (in all their variants) are so intuitive that I can't even give directions to somebody on how to operate one because I don't know how to unless I'm holding it in my hand (if that makes any sense).
Again, being a "very technically inclined person", you probably bring years of technology expectations to how the device should work (i.e. like many of the other poorly designed gadgets you've probably used over the years).
Sorry, but I think any device that can ship with an instruction booklet that only needs a few illustrations (and no text) is a pretty good design feat, especially for all the stuff it can do.
Well I'm in one of those disparaged academic disciplines that is constantly lampooned around here, and all I'm saying is that just because you aren't in chosen field X, doesn't mean that X is "total BS" like software development tends to consider those of us in HFE/Graphic Design/HCI, etc. (Good thing I'm not a writer..holy run-on sentence batman.)
I think a big reason this blog entry exists is precisely because good design ISN'T obvious, as evidenced by the amount of bad design we see every day.
I like your reasons for the existence of bad design. The over-zealous guy (I call them my Adobe Employees) that is always trying to make cutting edge stuff in our training that is so fancy that it: a) confuses the learners and b) cripples the computer's cpu cycles. I'd another designer type--the "doesn't matter" guy who just goes out and grabs a random crappy MS clipart object and slaps it on there because he's so concerned with the background code that he doesn't care about usability.
Lemme guess--you're a developer, right? I'm amazed that so many people on slashdot are so fervently anti-good-design anything...as if good design is relative and not worth the time and money...even though it is the #1 feature that most people consider when purchasing something. Most people look at something, see if it has the bare minimum requirements for what they want, then pick the one that looks/works the nicest (to them) for the best price.
You do realize that the best universities all have fields of study solely dedicated to UI/design/Human Factors Engineering etc., don't you? If it isn't important, than how can so many of us have lucrative and rewarding careers in it?
Furthermore, why do the people who just don't "get it" when it comes to design spend so much time slamming it? I can't wrap my brain around any code other than some simplistic Action Scripting and Visual Basic, but I don't bitch an moan about how unimportant programming is to me.
That guy is 100% right, but there isn't anything new, let alone newsworthy in that post.
As long as there continues to be bad design, there can never be enough articles like this one.
Jef Raskin rightfully pointed out that descriptive text beats icons on any day.
Not quite. Cognition depends on the learner's preference. Text beats icons any day for people who's cognition works that way.
I'll start with a Google search for "Asperger's Syndrome". I'm not being funny or mean, just saying that icon abstraction is a weakness for them.
Since a LOT of software developers display varying degrees of Asperberger's, it is no wonder that the UIs in software are often lost on the common user. This is also why there are Human Factors Engineers and Software Developers...very few people can do both well.
Actually, you don't have to be able to speak English. As long as you can read it you're fine.
Exactly. The letters that form the word "H O M E" just become a really abstract icon for non English speakers.
Each company's respective set of hieroglyphics is only as good as their respective Human Factors Engineers have made them. Some companies put more work (spend more money, hire better talent, emphasize that aspect, whatever) into the UI than others. It is a cornerstone of Apple products, for example, and often an after-thought for Microsoft products. Both companies are very successful and make lots of money, so as long as your hieroglyphics are speaking to the right customer, then I think it's ok.
Sorry the rest of us aren't as intelligent as you and needed an article that was articulate and persuasive in its repetition--you know, those elements of good writing we were taught in high school and college? It's nice to see a technical article on slashdot actually demonstrate some literary skill for once instead of dumping it in order to make more room in one's brain for abstract lines of code.
Really. That was a very nice article that made me think about some things I've never really considered.
I work in the field of design (mostly designing computer-based training) and can tell you that your sentiment is more common than not. Most people never think of design or how it impacts their daily lives.
Because of this, I always suggest two books: The Design of Every Day Things and The Non-Designer's Design Book.
Once you read these two books, you'll never look at things the same way again. You'll start noticing poorly designed things EVERYWHERE and wonder why it wasn't made better. You'll even formulate your own ways of making it better, which in turn (generally speaking) makes your own work better.
I tried an all-words interface recently for an interactive training module at work. I tried to model it after the Adobe Light Room interface. I liked it a lot, but it didn't get a good reception. Seems our business dev people are more concerned with teh shiny than they are functionality.
There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.
I disagree completely. As a matter of fact, your next sentences proves that there is such a thing as intuitive interfaces by the fact that an intuitive interface is also "discoverable".
However, that does NOT mean that intuitive interfaces are derived from previous knowledge. This is why people who jump to OSX from Windows have such a hard time with the "intuitive" interface of OSX. They grew used to a poor interface (Window Whatever) and then brought those bad habits with them.
A truly intuitive interface is one that a user with little experience (not enough to be persuaded to try something out of habit) can just figure out. It's also more than just icons--it's system hierarchy, interfaces, dialogs, visual/audio/animation cues etc. I think iPods/iPhones are good examples of this, since most users are enamored by those products, most likely because they are easy to figure out without having any reference to compare them too (no prior experience).
Well, in slashdot land, there's only bickering and arguing, so you are right. However, I liked the article and would like to discuss its merits further.
I misunderstood your post then. It sounded to me like you were inferring that the current state of government (i.e. that portrayed in the article) is as bad as that portrayed in the novel 1984.
I'm simply saying we're not there (yet), and to posit otherwise is a bit tinfoilhatish.
No, I'm saying the guy's post is over-the-top, not the book. It is pure hyperbole to compare the current state of government to that represented in the book 1984.