Next-generation OS smackdown, circa '06.

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 80
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    I have this image of playing charades with my Mac. Voice of Fred: "OK, it's five words, first word sounds like..."



    LOL!



    http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/in...ter/index.html (third one)
  • Reply 42 of 80
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Options are also just more things that will break, more variables to take into account, and more restrictions on how you can evolve the interface. Backward compatibility is a design constraint; sometimes, it can be crippling.



    For example, some people see it as good that you can "turn off" XP's interface and go back to (nearly) a Windows 2000 interface. What I see is an attempt at a refreshed interface that's been hobbled by the need to be revertable. In other words, the Windows 2000 interface is an albatross. And the result of XP having that albatross around its neck is that Luna was a half-assed cosmetics job, and so I'm typing this on an XP box with the interface reverted to 2000's. Had MS not wimped out, they might (or, to be fair, might not) have come up with a better interface for XP.



    I think BuonRotto is on to something profound with his post on the nature of Apple's UI evolution: They're moving deliberately, trying out new features in apps, refining them, and then introducing them overall. This is much more prudent and much more effective than just dropping a whole new thing on people every few years (because then you're under a tremendous amount of pressure to provide an option to "turn it off").



    If MS continues in the task-based, tab-and-button-festooned course that they're currently on, Longhorn will be a big mess and all the funky Quartz ripoffs in the world won't save it.
  • Reply 43 of 80
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Kickaha, again you're arguing outside the context of this discussion. Although I haven't been able to find the SA article on the net, I have found some that reference it and I don't see where it has any bearing on *this* discussion.



    To put it into the context of *this* discussion - tell me how the strong UI customizability in, say, Win XP "has strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board."



    C.
  • Reply 44 of 80
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph:

    For example, some people see it as good that you can "turn off" XP's interface and go back to (nearly) a Windows 2000 interface. What I see is an attempt at a refreshed interface that's been hobbled by the need to be revertable. In other words, the Windows 2000 interface is an albatross. And the result of XP having that albatross around its neck is that Luna was a half-assed cosmetics job, and so I'm typing this on an XP box with the interface reverted to 2000's. Had MS not wimped out, they might (or, to be fair, might not) have come up with a better interface for XP.



    So in other words, you're more comfortable letting someone else dicate how you should work rather than using a system that allows you to work the way *you* want to.



    One day you're going to realize that we don't all want to work the same way, that we're not all *productive* the same way or have the same aesthetic tastes.



    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 45 of 80
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Quote:

    To put it into the context of *this* discussion - tell me how the strong UI customizability in, say, Win XP "has strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board."



    Start menu vs. Dock.



    Customizability of the Start menu is mind boggling. You can do almost anything, and because of this customizing the Start menu is difficult, non-intuitive and a PITA. Much like the Apple Menu, except the Start menu is so bad and complex it makes the Apple Menu look like work of UI genius.



    The Dock on the other hand, while missing some basic features (like the ability to drag files to folders in the Dock) is simple, pretty customizable and is easy to figure out because it uses the metaphor of direct manipulation of objects. Now if only Apple would do something about that metaphorically destructive 'poof'.



    Carry on bitching.
  • Reply 46 of 80
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    Kickaha, again you're arguing outside the context of this discussion. Although I haven't been able to find the SA article on the net, I have found some that reference it and I don't see where it has any bearing on *this* discussion.



    It is an overview of the rather surprising results of research on the psychology of choice and how individuals feel about it. I'm sorry you can't see how that extends directly into this discussion.



    Quote:

    To put it into the context of *this* discussion - tell me how the strong UI customizability in, say, Win XP "has strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board."



    Your answer lies in satisfaction studies regarding WinXP UI, the plethora of books that attempt to teach folks how to use it, the general confusion regarding the UI, etc, etc, etc.



    *Some* choice is good. *Huge* amounts of choice is worse, regardless of what many people would expect. It's really that simple. Blanket statements like "options are never bad" are simply wrong.



    If UI design were simply a matter of providing enough options, we'd all still be running Motif. Ever used it? It sucked... but it was all about "add an option!", so in theory it should have been *excellent*, yes? Nope.



    Blanket statements such as you gave are simply incorrect, and the UI literature shows it. (So are hyperbole statements regarding 'dictate', just so you know... some options = good, many options = not so good, no options = not so good.)
  • Reply 47 of 80
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.



    Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.



    C.




    Coherent applications are written to conform to an interface that has certain guidelines. In an "everything is an option" OS, there would be no such guidelines, and designing a UI that is flexible enough to conform to every possible permutation users might dream up would be impossible. You would end up with apps that don't recognize your settings, or which don't implement them quite right, or which totally ditch the "real" OS UI for their own UI simply because it allows them to have a predictable set of variable.



    Supporting an infinitely-flexible UI would also be impossible, as most computer users -- and an increasing percentage computer users -- are total idiots about their machines. You need to be able to tell them "click on the Apple in the top left," not "look around and see if you can find an Apple... or did you change it to look like something else?"



    If you've ever had to help someone -- over the telephone -- try to get the Taskbar on Windows back down to the bottom after accidently moving it to the top or side, you'd know what sort of chaos your suggestion would create.
  • Reply 48 of 80
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    So in other words, you're more comfortable letting someone else dicate how you should work rather than using a system that allows you to work the way *you* want to.



    That distinction is nonsense, and the proof is the Macintosh.



    The whole point of design is to create something that works as a whole. An interface that doesn't work as a whole is a bitch to work in. And I'd rather spend a little while adapting to a well-designed interface than days spelunking through options trying to invent my own interface design. This was the great innovation of the Mac: The system provides uniform on-screen controls with uniform behaviors, assembled according to painstakingly assembled guidelines, and the result is a system that Just Works, clearly and consistently and without much or any futzing around.



    Basically, you're saying that everyone should be an interface designer. But not everyone is. There's an art and a science to it, and I'm more than happy to leave it to the pros.



    Quote:

    One day you're going to realize that we don't all want to work the same way, that we're not all *productive* the same way or have the same aesthetic tastes.



    One day you'll realize that your philosophy is the philosophy behind Motif - that design is fascism and infinite customizability is freedom - and the result is a chaotic, borderline-unusable system that has been hated by the people who have to work with it for a solid decade.



    What it comes down to is not choice, but quality of design. A clean, well-designed system beats a system with a bunch of mediocre options every time. No-one will care that the iPod and iTunes and iTMS are all chained together as long as they're best in class.



    Besides, at the end of all this, you can add "customizations" to OS X the same way you add them to OS 9 or Windows, with the same consequences.
  • Reply 49 of 80
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph:

    Basically, you're saying that everyone should be an interface designer. But not everyone is. There's an art and a science to it, and I'm more than happy to leave it to the pros.



    No. As I've said *repeatedly*... having a default UI state is fine - even good. It offers a baseline user experience which is fine for those who don't want to bother messing with it. What I'm saying is that option should be made available for those who do want customize the UI for a more enjoyable and productive user experience. Especially if you're going to be plonking yourself down in front of it for 40+ hours a week! It should adapt to the way I want to work - not the other way around.



    What you don't seem to get is that while you would have the option to work differently, you also have the option **not to**. So I have no idea why you're all so dead set against better UI customizabilty in X. It just boggles the mind.

    Quote:

    What it comes down to is not choice, but quality of design. A clean, well-designed system beats a system with a bunch of mediocre options every time.



    And you still don't understand that what may be considered well designed and aesthetically pleasing to one person, isn't necesssarily the same for everyone else.



    Is it really so much to ask for to support UI Themes at the core OS level and better core UI display and behavioral options like Windows Display Options and so on (especially for turning off CPU churning shadows, transitions, transparency, etc)?



    I mean really...



    C.
  • Reply 50 of 80
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    So I have no idea why you're all so dead set against better UI customizabilty in X.



    Because, even in XP, it introduces instability at many levels.
  • Reply 51 of 80
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    Is it really so much to ask for to support UI Themes at the core OS level and better core UI display and behavioral options like Windows Display Options and so on (especially for turning off CPU churning shadows, transitions, transparency, etc)?



    When there are other, serious computing and usability issues to be complete first, then yes, wasting resources on a triviality such as theming is indeed too much to ask.



    "Oooooh! My menu bar is *GREY* now! I'm so l33t!"
  • Reply 52 of 80
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    So in other words, you're more comfortable letting someone else dicate how you should work rather than using a system that allows you to work the way *you* want to.





    I want to work what I'm working on. I'll let the Ph.D.'s work on the UI. I've got a dissertation to write. After all, I'm not working on the UI, I'm working on my document.
  • Reply 53 of 80
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Concord,



    While I may agree there are ways UIs could be more "adaptive" to individual choice your condescendingly fanatical rants haven't been a particularly convincing or friendly way of discussing that topic. Why not try giving people more credit for realizing the issues involved rather than accusing them of not understanding?



    Thanks for mentioning that SA article, Kickaha. Maybe I can find the April issue in the library...
  • Reply 54 of 80
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sjk:

    Concord,



    While I may agree there are ways UIs could be more "adaptive" to individual choice your condescendingly fanatical rants haven't been a particularly convincing or friendly way of discussing that topic.







    "Condescendingly fanatical rants"?



    Ahhh, thanks sjk, I needed that.



    Obviously, this may be of some surprise to you but I would consider this a pretty friendly disagreement. There hasn't even been any name-calling! I'm just waiting for someone to call me a WinTroll then we can *really* get things started! By the looks of it, I've just about pushed Kickaha over the edge... just oooone more little nudge.

    Quote:

    Why not try giving people more credit for realizing the issues involved rather than accusing them of not understanding?



    I think some beleive that Apple can do no wrong and if they do something, for whatever reason, it must be good. The arugments I've heard so far sound more like rationalizations that anything else. And if I don't buy it, you can believe I'm gonna call you on it.



    Anyway, before it does turn nasty , I feel I've put in my two bits in on this issue and am willing to let it go at that (for now... ).



    Cheers,



    C.
  • Reply 55 of 80
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    By the looks of it, I've just about pushed Kickaha over the edge... just oooone more little nudge.



    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....



    Don't give yourself that much credit yet.



    Compared to the Usenet heyday, you all are just annoying little gnats.
  • Reply 56 of 80
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha:

    Compared to the Usenet heyday, you all are just annoying little gnats.



    Nerd.







    C.
  • Reply 57 of 80
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    Nerd.



    That's *GEEK* thankyouverymuch.
  • Reply 58 of 80
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Someone needs to read some basic UI Design theory / primer.
  • Reply 59 of 80
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:





    Is it really so much to ask for to support UI Themes at the core OS level and better core UI display and behavioral options like Windows Display Options and so on (especially for turning off CPU churning shadows, transitions, transparency, etc)?





    When I read this I see someone who doesnt like the Aesthetic of the GUI, they want it to _look_ different. Well, you can do that in OS X. But its not in your face so that the users who are happy to leave as is dont even know that the option exists.



    Aesthetics are next to irrelevant to me. Sure, I like it to look pretty, but one pretty is much like another. Anything done by a pro.



    The issues are options in UI. Things like, should your mouse be click to focus, or focus follows mouse. I like FFM, but it tends breaks multi window apps. It doesnt fit well in the Mac world, so I bid it a sad goodbye and moved on.



    When it comes to UI design, if you dont like OS X, use something else. There are GUI's that will let you change every setting under the sun. Try one of those out and see where you end up.



    Me, I like a well designed, consistent system, that pretty much does what I want without me fighting it every minute. Thats why I have a Mac at home.
  • Reply 60 of 80
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Concord

    "Condescendingly fanatical rants"?



    Ahhh, thanks sjk, I needed that.




    Well, okay, that was a bit strong...
    Quote:

    Obviously, this may be of some surprise to you [...]



    Gee, really?



    Never mind.



    Actually, the topics here are generating some interesting discussion. Sorry for the distraction.
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Compared to the Usenet heyday, you all are just annoying little gnats.



    Ahh, those Usenet times. Like we needed that reminder.
Sign In or Register to comment.