Jef Raskin Talks Skins 316
gwernol writes "Jef Raskin, one of the original Mac design team and a distinguished figure in the world of user interface design has given an interesting
interview over on OS Opinion. He talks about the tradeoff between interface consistency and customizability, and particularly the impact of skinnable applications on usability. Interesting reading, including some harsh words for "guru UI designers" like Steve Jobs..."
An incorrect assumption? (Score:5, Insightful)
He assumes that 'experts' can come up with one 'grand-unified-ui' which works the best for everyone, ignoring the fact that peoples minds interpret things in many different ways.
He should try working with mentally disabled children for a while, it is a BIG eye-opener as to how different people minds can be in their interpretation and reaction to a given stimulus, and is a little undersood area.
These 'UI' experts who apparently know us well enough to design the 'one true' interface are chasing an impossible dream, IMHO. You only need to look at how many people love/hate XPs default look, or apples aqua, for examples. I personally cannot develop efficiently without multiple desktops to support my many open windows, yet I know other excellent developers who will NOT run more than one app at a time and run it fullscreen.
This is the equivalent of trying to design the perfectly efficient kitchen, it will never happen.
I suspect a lot of the problem is that the 'common' desktop ui's out there don't really skin very well, the underlying system is too limited. X windows is the exception to this, as it only exists as seperable layers, allowing a much fnier control of it's functionality (via KDE and Gnome, for example)
The most consistent UI I've ever used was under OS/2, and IBM did a LOT of development on that, I wish windows would catch up, but it was far from perfect for me, and I bet the majority.
Customisation is required for ANYTHING we interact with in a major and complex way, computers are probably the biggest example of this yet, thankfully their customisability is growing.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Something to think about: A car is the most time critical interface that most people deal with. Take your eyes off the road for 8 seconds to change the radio station while a child crosses the street. And yet, most people manage NOT to kill someone with their car. These are the same people that bitch and moan about computers being hard to use. Anyway, everyone has a certain ammount of customization to their car. They use their favorite radio station. They adjust the seat. They roll down the windows. They adjust the mirrors. Should these things be standardized? Absolutely not. Sure, I found it a pain to have to adjust the seat after my girlfriend drove me home, but it was definitely better than her driving without reaching the pedals.
Computer interfaces are analogous; "I like it" IS a good reason to change your interface. Comfort with a tool improves productivity.
Besides, it would be difficult to have anyone find a comprehensive set of widgets without overwhelming even the best user. There is a big difference between multi-line and single line text boxes (press the enter key when there is a default button on the screen). Or tri-state vs. binary check boxes. Or the hundreds of ways a calendar could be used. If the functionality of something is different, should the look be different? What about the grids in Access vs. the grids in excel?
I agree that skins that move the window resizing controls around might have a learning curve for a guest at a machine. But is it bad? A slight loss of productivity for a guest for a comfort increase for the main user is probably worth the tradeoff. I know that I like changing my window background to 20% grey. It provides enough contrast without blasting my eyes with bright white light. Just because a text box functionally mimics paper and ink doesn't mean that it needs the same colors. And think about editors with syntax highlighting. I may browse code looking mostly at braces. I damn well want my braces to stand out. You might browse code by comments, whereas I find them distracting, so you choose a high contrast comment color and I choose a low contrast color. Because we are different, we have difficulties at each other's machines, but it's a lot better than each of us being less productive most of the time.
Of course, I may just be full of dung.
About the car (Score:2)
Did you know that all icons displayed in your car are standardized?
Re:About the car (Score:2)
"Did you know that all icons displayed in your car are standardized?"
They are? I have driven many cars in my life and EACH car had a different icon for somethings. Somethings were even in different places. One car had the gearshift on the steering wheel column, one had it on the floor. One had a perf switch for the transmisson, one didn't (same manufacturer!). You must have only driven one car eh?
Re:About the car (Score:2)
ummm... maybe they're cars that don't comply to the standard???
According to your logic, a browser braking standards renders the standards nonexistant. I guess you should tell the good people over at the W3C that their work is for naught.
Re:About the car (Score:2)
He states that "If one person makes a change, we all make that change" (paraphrased). What if a person with bad eyesight starts work there, and needs to use a very large font on screen to be able to read? Do they all choose a ridiculously large font, even though only one person needs it?
The solutions is _not_ to force everybody to the same UI design. The solution (a looong way in coming) is to have a mechanism for transparently migrate the users preferenses to whatever machine he or she is sitting at at the moment.
/Janne
To Play Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Most user interface customization offers that level of customizability. Gnome and KDE seem to both be pretty good at letting you change the things that would correspond to the mirrors and seats on your car -- you can make the various widgets look a little different to suit your personal taste, and I think that's fine.
I should also note that whenever I install a new system I always spend about 4 minutes configuring gnome the way I like it and about half an hour getting EMACS to the point I'm used to it being. Fourty fiddly E-Lisp thingies...
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2, Insightful)
Similarly, he would not argue that radio listen to only one radio station, but that all cars have the radio controls in the same location, and that they operate in the same way.
To be honest, I see his point. I travel alot as part of my job. Hence, I use a lot of rental cars. It can be a bitch arriving at night, trying to operate an unfamiliar car. Where's the dimmer switch. Damn, not this stack, that's the windshield washer. Let me feel around for the overhead light switch so I can read the map. Is the overhead light in the front, the middle, somewhere else. Etc. Etc.
Do I want all cars to be identical. No. But do I wish that manufactutors could agree on some standards. Yes.
How I miss the days of my youth where the light dimmer was a floor switch under the emergency brake. A lousy location, but I always knew where it was.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. But there is a big difference: Your girlfriend did not move the position of any of the controls (i.e. she didn't exchange the pedals or something). She just made the car fit her in a physical way. Also note that in a car, it's quite easy to adjust things, while on computers you often have to dig deeply into obscure menu structures. Raskin's "red on red" is a good example of what's wrong with the kind of UI customization that is offered by current systems.
I used to think that too. Try a better monitor, and do not set it to maximum contrast. (I'm serious about this. Black on white is much more readable.)
This is a good example, but this doesn't mean customization as offered by current systems is done well. I would (like, probably, you) not want to read code on someone's computer if he's set up high contrast comments, slightly lower contrast code. Still, that person shouldn't be forced to read code the way I like it. But that's not the problem -- the problem is that you can't change the setting with a simple mouse click, like you can arrange the seat in your car with something as simple as pulling a lever and then simply moving the seat to where you'd like it to be.
But I think there is also a lot of truth in what Raskin says. Most of the skinning and customization options available on current system just increase the coolness factor, not the usability. You can't tell me that a semi-transparent menu is more usable than a non-transparent one. Regarding your example of source code, you cannot customize the way code looks when reading a book. Still, you probably do read example code in books, don't you? And you probably don't have too much difficulty doing so.
But while "no customization" does solve the problem of "bad customization", this doesn't automatically mean that "good customization" is impossible and shouldn't be available in a good GUI.
I've read Raskin's book, and this interview is really way below the quality of the book. Raskin ought to apply the scientific methods he talks about to the reasoning in his interviews, just like he applied them to the reasoning in his book.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:5, Interesting)
Power seats that remember driver position. These come in some of the higher end cars now.
Why not do this for preferences?? It is rather trivial to do with the MAC. I would like to speak of it in other terms....
Using a keychain microdrive (USB?) with about 16-32 MB of storage, you could not only provide a secure login method, but also store preference data. Any application that was "(Insert Marketing Term) aware" would store it's preferences in a registry type repository, and would be synched with the microdrive.
Moving to a new computer would be a matter of plugging in your "key", which would read your user data, log you in and apply your preferences to the "registry". A 32MB Mircodrive should have no trouble storing your Photoshop Prefs, Background images, Winamp skins, etc... Power users will want larger Microdrives.
As time evolves, The Gimp will learn to read Photoshop Prefs, etc..., But at the very least, like applications will work in like ways on different machines.
Even in standardized interfaces, there will still be "preference related items" like bookmarks, recently used files, etc. I personally would just like to have my bookmarks and preferences stored and merged between home and work. Standardized interfaces are difficult to achieve even in the corporate environment where a given OS may only have 10-20 different uses.
Raskin is full of empty criticism. For all of his chirping, he has not created this perfect interface. Perhaps it's too hard for him to get in the industry?? He has no buisness commenting on Eazel when he has nothing better to show.
Finally, he made a crack about the default "Aqua" colored background, whether the Redmond or Cupertino version is unclear. If he is talkling about that horrible off-blue that was the default for Win95, that was chosen for another reason.
Blue waves travel slower, and hence a monitor displying a blue field will have less noticable scan lines from refresh than a red field would.
Complex problems require overlooking simple solutions.
~Steve Jobs
Jason
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:4, Insightful)
For an entirely different reason, I find the car analogy great. The article keeps going on and on about how horrible it is to switch environments when there are different skins. Then just look at how different cars are.
Yes the steering wheel is still there, and so on, but the "skin" on the dashboard is different and the buttons are often placed in different places. Some cars have digital speedometers, some have analogue ones. Ignition is in different places, geer shifts have different configurations.
All of these take some getting used to when getting into a new car, but it's part of the "charm". It's also one of the big factors when someone is buying a new car. Different people are comfortable with different things.
Of course, maybe it's more efficient to standardize everything: Let every computer, car, coffee machine, whatever else have the same "skin". And forbid background pictures for computers (and btw, show me one bozo who deliberately uses a picture of 10 overlapping windows as a background...) I would be bored outta my head.
Maybe we should just geneticly engineer everyone into one "male" or "female" character. That would be more efficient since noone would have a problem finding a partner when half of the population would be a "perfect partner", and noone has to be jealous of anyone whatsoever. The world would suck though. One people, one skin (ring any bells?)
Simply said: This interview rings the warning bells of what I value the most with free software: freedom of choice.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
Yes the steering wheel is still there, and so on, but the "skin" on the dashboard is different
And you choose the skin when you buy the car. And some colours reflect themselves on the windshield on a sunny day (very bad).
and the buttons are often placed in different places
Yes, many stupid GM cars (they finally changed this with the new Malibu, I'm not sure about other cars since) have that god-forsaken all-in-one control stick that's stupid to use no matter how good you get at it (wipers, windshield, indicators, cruise control, & more, all on one stick. What the hell were they thinking?).
Some cars are designed well enough so you don't have to spend that 8 seconds finding the buttons to change the radio station. You just let your hand rest down and boom, you've found the buttons. And they're laid out well enough so that you don't need to look. Other cars have the radio floating in the middle of the dashboard, with no hope of your hand landing on it by chance.
Some cars have digital speedometers, some have analogue ones.
And I don't see how digital speedometers are good for much (and I've used them). You have to specifically read the numbers to find out what speed your going, and it's nearly impossible to get a glance how fast your accelerating or braking (rather than watching the needle move). Analogue ones give you all that info by just looking.
And then some analogue ones are crappy too. The top speed of some cars is about 130 MPH, but the speedometer will go up to 200, for no good reason other than cool value (too many people judge the top speed of the car by looking at the speedometer). This causes the useful area of the speedometer to be smaller than it should be, which is a bad interface. And many speedometers are designed with the 'I like it' attitude, with no regard to how they will look in bright sunlight or lit up at night; some cars are far, far better than others.
Ignition is in different places, gear shifts have different configurations.
And just because the gear shifts have different configurations doesn't mean they all have the same usefulness. Some have reverse beside 1st gear. When you're in a rush (they're a truck coming up to fast behind you to slow down at a stop sign or something) you slam it as fast as you can into first, but in your excessive speed, you end up in reverse. That is bad, cars shouldn't be built that way. Yet many cars are built that way, to be eccentric or something (someone liked it).
On some cars, you can take the keys out of the ignition while the car is running (and moving!). On some cars you can open the door from the inside even though the door's locked. Fine if it's your car and you're used to it, but how many times do you have other people in your car? Or kids? (I don't think they're allowed to sell cars like that in North America).
Thinking about that, how many times have you had people in your car who couldn't find the lock to get out? And you sit there telling them, "oh, it's a little hard to get to. See that there? No that..." Granted, the place of the lock isn't too important, but some cars have them in really stupid spots because it was cheaper to build that way.
We only have regulations for only the most important safety concerns about a car; safety problems don't end at the crumple zones. Preferences really must take a back seat to safety, and in computer UI, they should often take a back seat to efficiency. This is one thing Mac OS users are groaning about OS X, there has been quite a bit of efficiency lost in the UI.
If car designers always built cars that were safe, we wouldn't need a long list of regulations to make sure that they built safe cars. They design them the way they do because they're cheaper to make or they sell better- it has nothing to do with what's good for you. Likewise, there are no 'regulations' about how to build a GUI, programmers just do whatever the hell they want. Sometimes there's a UI designer around. Often UI designers are more concerned about aesthetics or ease-of-use than efficiency.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
This is something the MacOS has always had in spades. They did shitloads of GUI research and if I'm not mistaken, the Platinum spec was a GUI checklist that all apps had to meet. All the options had to work the same in all the apps. Option-q to quit, etc. You could open any app, new or old, and feel at home. Most apps you didn't need any help getting around in or finding options.
More than anything, establishing a predictable GUI is best. I feel KDE has done well at this, nearly all KDE apps have the same functionality. i can always find out who made the app by clicking help>about. I can always save with control-s. Gnome has this as well but I haven't used it enough to make a fair comparison.
As long as KDE sticks by the Honda standard (making something the same time and time again) its users can get comfortable and be productive no matter what the app or what the version.
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:4, Interesting)
Going along with the car analogy there is a great difference in the interfaces of a car and a backhoe, and yet they are both more similar than they are to a 747.
The needs, thought and work patterns of a graphic artist are different than those of novelist, whose needs are a bit different than a short essay writer.
The one grand UI is a chimera, and I hope it stays that way.
KFG
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't particularly like skins per se, as they seem to be mere eye-candy and I kind of like the Win95's level of functional utility. But whenever I start with a virgin Windows machine with a newer OS, I have to do a bunch of fiddling, remove the fade in and/or smooth opening windows, change the explorer defaults to list rather than big honking icons, etc. Does that count?
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
Re:An incorrect assumption? (Score:2)
I hope you're kidding here. The Workplace shell was reasonably consistent but the rest was consistently awful. I don't recall a single app from IBM or anyone else that shared much consistency to the next whatsover. Yes, most paid lip service to CUA guidelines so menus looked the same and a few keyboard accelerators, but everything else was different - toolbars, tooltips, tabs, icons, integration into the WPS - everything. I half think IBM did this on purpose thinking it would boost sales of their training courses.
And consistent doesn't mean user-friendly. I worked at IBM developing OS/2 apps and I don't recall anyone looking at it from a usability standpoint. Basically the UI was whatever the developer made it to look like with a few CUA tweaks near ship date. Worse yet, every IBM division suffered from Not Invented Here syndrome so there was no sharing of common control libraries. That meant some IBM apps sported some pretty bizarre user interfaces.
UI expert is missing something (as usual) (Score:4, Interesting)
Obvious solution: Select your favorite skin on the other computer, do your work, restore to the original skin before you leave. This could be as quick as typing a number in a box "My favorite skin is #372 optionflags 17".
What the article says: Obvious solution not mentioned. It is assumed that you HAVE to deal with someone else's skin choice. Your subconscious chokes. Bad bad bad. UI expert conclusion: no more skins.
*sheesh*
Re:UI expert is missing something (as usual) (Score:3)
Jef: To customize is to introduce change. You lose some consistency with any interface change. But there's a more important point to be made. Preferences eat up resources. They make the software larger. They waste the time of the user in changing them. Of course, there are no really well-designed interfaces out there good enough to prove the point that you don't need preferences. Any programmers who want to help build one with me, drop me an e-mail.
Yes, well, DOS was very consistent, and it hardly ate any resources at all (by todays standard). Let's all switch to DOS. In fact, all this article is talking about is to limit the choices for the user. The second funny thing is that "any programmers" can help build the perfect interface... and of course he's the only one to know how. Looks more like a religious sect to me: Oh but there isn't any way of prooving it! You just have to beleive ME!
Re:UI expert is missing something (as usual) (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a more important point to be made. Preferences eat up resources. They make the software larger
I think that perhaps he is thinking of the sort of monolithic software that uses its own design of skinning. Personally, I tend to use Gnome (right now, but KDE is essentially the same sort of a thing in this regard)... and as far as I know, skinning these applications is something that you can do either per application, or overall (with the
And I fail to see entirely why the fact that the toolkit gives you the ability to do this should make each program written with this toolkit any larger. In fact, I am tempted to conclude that he just doesn't really know anything about the way (GNU/)Linux has been designed, and is therefore making uninformed conclusions.
Furthermore, surely he's making an error when he describes his 'issue' with customisation of interfaces - he claims that if you change machines and use somebody else's, then you will become confused and fail to work effectively (sure, XMMS skins do that to me every time... I just can't find the 'play' button behind that anime snapshot, mm hmm). Levity aside, surely on a Linux system you do the simplest thing - log out of that user's system and log in again as yourself. Ta-da! Instant default interface. Or do as we do at work - share home directories, so that wherever you log in, you always get your very own preferences.
We Have The Technology. And Have Had Since Unix Began, Pretty Much.
Also, of course, if you happen to dislike this bloke's default interface so much that you can't use its super-effective and efficient user-interface (see for example the evil green screen that came with Atari STs and was presumably their idea of efficient...) you're a bit stuck, aren't you? Parallels with the oft-cited communist principle of 'one kind of toothbrush is enough for everybody' come to mind, ridiculous as they are.
Don't get me wrong; he has a point (I'm studying this precious theory of his right now, I'm a graduate student in the field). However, like most UI experts, who tend to come from the fields of psychology verging on the sociology rather than comp/sci, he is monumentally blind to the workings of technology.
Re:UI expert is missing something (as usual) (Score:2)
Allow me to explain: Apple employs a ton of UI experts and has a long history of working with UI designers - what are they famous for (apart from the pretty hardware)? Ease of use. Apple == easy to use. You might disagree (and recently Apple would appear to have been working with UI experts less) but the majority of people know Apple is easier to use. Certainly if you role the clock back to when Raskin was at Apple they were clearly making the easier to use computers.
Linux has a long history of working with coders, geeks and computer nerds who are doing stuff that is "cool" rather than trying to be exceptionally productive or easy to use. It is only in the last few years since Linux has become so popular that focus has turned to usability. What's Linux known for? Being difficult to use.
So while it is all very nice for people here to criticise Raskin and other UI experts as being "out of touch" or "not having anything better" - perhaps you should come down from your high horse and listen to people who have studied in that area. I'm not qualified to comment on kernel development issues like which VM was better so when that issue came up I kept quiet and listened to what the experts said about it.
I've laid down this challenge everytime a UI argument comes up - find me one piece of objective evidence that supports your claims. Raskin has four of five pages worth of references in his book to back him up, what about you? It's easy to rant on about how when you change this or that it *obviously* makes you more productive, but noone bothers to actually prove that. There is significant amounts of proof that interfaces which make you objectively more productive do not necessarily perform well on subjective tests. In other words, unless you objectively analyse your customisations/interface you will likely be highly mislead as to the productivity of the interface (See Tullis' Ph.D dissertation, 1984, page 134 and his referenced works).
Right now, computers are hard to use - why shouldn't we try to improve them and when doing so why should we argue against the research that is being done without backing up our arguments with facts?
Efficiency, Boredom, and Schemas (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Efficiency, Boredom, and Schemas (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that's a resonable opinion for someone who wants to get a diverse computer use experience, but then again most computer users (of which slashdoters are a small small minority) just want to get in, get things done, and get out.
Have you ever used the trial version of WinZip? The trial dialog that pops up before you can use the product swaps the OK and Cancel buttons intentionally every time it starts up. Even if you use WinZip 10 times a day every day your concious mind comes into play every time you use this application. What's the task at hand? Accepting a dialog. Why should you have to think about this?
The same mental lag happens for novice users working between UIs (or skins)... bringing the concious mind into the picture is not helpful to people who need/want thier entire concious mind available for the task at hand, not accepting a dialog.
Re:Efficiency, Boredom, and Schemas (Score:2)
You can't get a keygen to solve the similar problem experienced when using two different tools that are functionaly equivlanet but that have thier controls in different places, which is what the point actually was.
Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this interview, Jef Raskin comes off as rather arrogant. He seems absolutely convinced that there is an objective, scientific, Best Way for everything about interfaces.
I'm not convinced. One person might actually work better with white text on a deep blue background, or whatever. I can think of other examples.
With Mr. Raskin it is all-or-nothing: if you work for him, you don't get to customize anything, unless you convince him that you really have a better idea (in which case he switches too, and everyone else who works for him has to switch too.
His supporting arguments didn't impress me much either. A "Preferences" dialog makes an app consume more resources? Not enough to matter, I'd say. That's like saying that putting foam cushions on a car seat makes the car heavier.
The absolute gem of a quote, though, was this one:
Of course, there are no really well-designed interfaces out there good enough to prove the point that you don't need preferences. Any programmers who want to help build one with me, drop me an e-mail.
Maybe he can actually create an interface so amazing, so perfect, so right that no one would ever be able to improve upon it. I won't hold my breath, though.
steveha
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:4, Interesting)
They say that Jobs, disappointed with the progress on his pet Lisa project, commandeered the Macintosh team and "rode" it to victory. I've read the good, bad, and ugly biographies of Steve Jobs, and it seems to me that Raskin had a few good ideas in his "Macintosh Bible" that would have been pulled down by all his bad ideas if Jobs hadn't gotten involved and imposed his own brand of anal-retentive design fascism.
IIRC, Raskin wanted a pitiful 256x256 resolution, Jobs insisted on higher (512x384), which was one of the features which made the Mac Classic unique. He wanted white on black, Jobs wanted the paper look (black on white). Again, part of the original Mac's charm.
It seems like they both started out somewhat geeky, anal-retentive, and anti-social; however, Jobs has mellowed somewhat since he got booted from Apple for being so mercuric. Raskin still seems to be growing up.
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
I don't think what he said about creating a UI that "doesn't need preferences" doesn't mean the UI is fixed in stone. What about a UI that learns from the user and configures itself?
For example, the plain desktop could slowly cycle through the colors of the rainbow while a user is using the system, taking some kind of "productivity" measure as the user is using it. If it's determined that the user works better when the background is blue, the cycling could be weighted towards showing blue more often. The same could be done with dialog positioning, button positioning, window sizes, etc. I'd be willing to help figure out how that could be done.
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Oops, I meant "I don't think what he said about creating a UI that 'doesn't need preferences' MEANS the UI has to be fixed in stone." Sorry for the confusion; I need to sleep now.
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
In the article, Jef Raskin said that your subconscious learns its way around an interface, and customization is bad because it changes what you have to learn. Here are his words:
I think he would hate auto-configuring interfaces even more than he hates configurable ones.
steveha
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
I hate the arrogance of these interface 'experts'. GUI isn't everything people. Everyone knows that you can get things done ten times faster in a GUI yet home many people still stick with a plain old Bash shell?
Ridiculous. I want everything on my computer to be customizable to fit MY needs. Not what somebody tells me are my needs. My computer (MINE DAMMMIT!) shouldn't be a glorified VCR.. which of course the expertly designed easy-to-use interface that about 1/2 the population can't figure out how to set the clock on, much less do anything useful with.
Sigh. I am getting tired of effects/operations that I can't seem to change or get rid of. Case in point: Mac OSX's inumerable annoying features, wee purdy, it slides Joe Bob! Enough already. This is the trend of things to come, my fellow slashdotters. GUI 'experts' will design the 'perfect' GUI that of course A.)Is hard to use
C.)Has so many animations that 30% of the people using it have epileptic attacks C.)Is totally uncustomizable: I can hear it now, But
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Such rubbish. You can do some things quicker in a GUI and other things take an absolute age.
I challenge you to rename 100 jpegs from *.JPG to *.jpg quicker in a GUI than it took me to type:
ls *.JPG | awk -f '\.JPG' '{system(sprintf("mv \"%s\".JPG \"%s\".jpg", $0, $0))}'
I like the font efficiency though
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
see : rfc2616 [isi.edu]
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
3.2.3 URI Comparison
When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
URIs, with these exceptions:
- Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
- Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
I REALLY respect Jef Raskin but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Please understand, I've been what is called a "Mac Fanatic" since I first saw one in 1984. I now make my living on NT, AIX, Linux, etc. but still prefer to use Mac OS X at home.
At least once I day a cuss (under my breath, or, often loudly) NT 4 because it is HORRID interface design. And this is AFTER I moved the task bar to the top so the Start "drop-down" menu doesn't "drop-up" (with "Shutdown" being the first thing you encounter on the Start "drop-up" menu!), created "shortcuts" (that don't work completely or intuitively) to all my drives on the desktop, etc. to mimic the interface Jef created in, what, 1980? 1982? (with improvements since, of course)
But he needs to lighten up now. He is, IMHO, the Father of the GUI. (I'm not trolling and don't want to rehash old Xerox PARC arguments. I'm talking about mainstream markets.) But he's been really hard on OS X's Aqua interface and I like it. There are things in Aqua that I, personally, think are a step backward. But I can modify those THROUGH PREFERENCE SETTINGS (or other easy modifications) to be more like what I'm used to, and overall, I think OS X is the coolest OS in the history of personal computing. ("You got your point-and-click ease in my powerful OS!" "You got your powerful OS in my point-and-click ease!") Two great tastes that taste great together.
My message to Jef is: Rest on your laurels or continue to innovate. Either way I can respect you. But don't become the guy that makes his living by criticizing what others are doing. That's John Dvorak's job.
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Re:Jef Raskin: the Interface Nazi? (Score:2)
Big words - small concepts. (Score:2)
If play is the objective, then anything that gives you the jollies is fine. Just don't impose it on others.
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? And it just seems like such common sense. If your home PC is primarily used for playing Starcraft, go ahead and plunk a Starcraft theme on it. It would be less appropriate to use a Starcraft theme on, say, the computer your company uses to process accounts receivable.
Really, do we need an "in-depth exploration of the human psychology" to get this common-sense point across? Sure, if you get too used to the tacky theme on your home PC, you run the risk of someday thinking, "Huh.. where the hell is this shortcut by default, anyway?" And, yes, that would technically make you less productive. But, let me tell you, more tragic things have happened. I don't think skins are going to go away because of the danger of temporary moments of confusion.
In the beginning there was the command line! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In the beginning there was the command line! (Score:2)
Re:In the beginning there was the command line! (Score:2, Informative)
A group of researchers applied GOMS (which is a form of task analysis) to a new workstation designed for use by telephone company toll and assistance operators.
The new workstation should have been faster, according to those that designed it, because it:
Ran on a faster network
Had a 'better' GUI
The keyboard was remapped and some of the functions moved to allegedly speed up the operations.
and so on.
However, task analysis (and real-world testing) showed that the new system was in fact slower. There are technical reasons for this, eg. that although the network ran faster, the original system had redrawn line by line and therefore the operators had not needed to wait for the screen to completely draw... but partly, it was that some of the alterations that they had made were about as useful as feet on a fish.
A 'better gui'? What does that have to do with telecom operation? And many of the changes they'd made to the keyboard had taken operations that they would originally have done in 'slack time' and placed them in the critical path so that the operators actually had to type faster...
All this doesn't prove that command lines are necessarily faster.
What it does show is that many of the assumptions made by those who try to design 'better interfaces' are wrong - eg. the GUI - and that if you want to design an efficient user interface, you absolutely have to do it to suit a particular user or class of users. For a different user - say, an untrained beginner to the job - the Project Ernestine interface might have been far easier to use.... and therefore initially more efficient...
*sigh*
UI research is a hard problem. In my personal opinion, the current state of research is seriously broken in a number of ways - how do you measure the usability of a program? Why, you measure its efficiency! Um... but maybe I'm not looking to get my image drawn 0.56 seconds faster, but to get some artistic inspiration going? Well then, the 'state of the art' choice is probably heuristic evaluation, which is virtually empirical and just about has a sort of scientific basis. And it certainly won't tell you just how happy a user is. At which point it all comes down to using questionnaires. And at that point, you might as well kiss all this scientific theory stuff goodbye completely...
We tend to think of software as a tool, and computers as the beepy box on which those tools rely. I feel that this devalues the computer. User interfaces, in my uninformed opinion, tend to hide the computer (the freedom, as with the command line, to create more tools, fluidly) behind buttons, toolbars, and predefined courses of action. But what do I know?
Re:In the beginning there was the command line! (Score:3, Insightful)
is using cli the most efficient way to do traceroutes, grep searches, and other similar things? yes.
is cli the best way to browse the web? depends. lynx is good for news sites, not so good for porn!
is cli the best way to edit graphics? ummm.. let me know when the cli version of photoshop comes out and ill let you know.
my point is yes, years ago, the cli was the most productive interface for computers, but that is only because there was nothing worth doing at the time that couldnt be handled with a cli. at this point computers have so many uses that it is mainly a matter of the right tool for the right job.
How a CLI in Photoshop would work (Score:2)
is cli the best way to browse the web? depends. lynx is good for news sites, not so good for porn!
Have you ever read an erotic novel? Or you just point-and-drool at the pictures?
is cli the best way to edit graphics? ummm.. let me know when the cli version of photoshop comes out and ill let you know.
Yes, drawing directly on a layer really needs a coordinate input device such as a mouse or tablet, but imagine the scriptability that could arise from a command-line image manipulator:
Here's a clone of Photoshop Elements with a command-line [gimp.org].
Re:How a CLI in Photoshop would work (Score:2)
You can already script Photoshop. They're called actions. Read the manual.
--Dan
Have you ever read an erotic novel? (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
In our group, I strongly encourage everyone to keep their fscking mitts off of my machine. That way nobody gets hurt.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Sounds like Jeff should get a better OS not be a UI nazi.
or
In our car pool I insist no one moves the seats or the mirrors, that way none of us have to annoyingly move the seats or mirrors when we get in. Sure my knees are round my ears and I can't see what's behind me but it beats the crap out of having to move the chair every time!!!
Question for Jef (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, Jef: I use Solaris (and even SunOS 4(!) for some of the legacy systems) at work. I also use Windows NT at work. I have Windows 98 at home for games. I have a Linux box at home for networking. I have an iBook on which I run MacOSX and Yellow Dog Linux.
So, Mr Jef "Allowing users to customize their desktops creates a hodgepodge of interfaces" Raskin, I have a question: Have you considered that my life is already a hodgepodge of crazy and different intefaces, and that skins and themes actually let me make it MORE regular?
(Yeah, I know he's not really reading this. But I needed to vent somehow. If Sun, Apple, MS, and Red Hat will suddenly all agree on a common UI, I'll drop my need for customization.)
Re:Question for Jef (Score:2)
If Sun, Apple, MS and Red Hat all agreed on a common UI, you'd get something like the result when the Unix vendors agreeing to implement a standard UI. We got CDE--the Common Desktop Environment--which is ugly as sin, not very usable and inelegant to boot. It has the advantage that migrating configurations from one vendor to another will almost-but-not-quite work.
I'd rather have many vendors, each attempting to create the most useful interface. From competition spring features and improvements. A single uniform UI standard would be like CDE and the US Post Office: boring and just barely acceptable.
seems rather arrogant (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact is, people generally customize their computers to make things easier on themselves, and to make the machines more pleasant to work with. Nothing wrong with that. Most machines are used by a single person anyway, and if that person moves on then the next will customize it according to his or her preferences. I can't see how the Ultimate UI will radically improve performance; this 'Ultimate UI' would probably just end up annoying a whole lot of folks who don't like what the 'specialists' think is the key to greater productivity.
Now, if the man was serious about improving productivity in the work place he'd abandon this topic altogether and lobby to ban web browsers from company computers. I'd bet my last dollar that web browsers are the source of more wasted time at work than all UI 'issues' put together.
Max
Re:seems rather arrogant (Score:3, Insightful)
Science as opposed to pratical application (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, I'm not a big Steve Jobs fan...but let's set that aside for a moment. Sure, it's nice that this guy's a "real UI expert" and Jobs was mearly relying on "guruism"...but, in the end, Jobs liked it as a human, did he not? (At least, that's the way the article put it.) And, given that computers and GUI's are operated by humans, shouldn't that account for something?
Most of the GUI process is dominated by the actual look & feel of the interface. Is there a formula for that? Really? I would be interested to see if his formula included stark and boring design elements, or curved and shiny ones. I would then be interested to watch a wealth of people throw their arms up in disagreement. THAT'S the point. That's why customization is important.
Some people love the default look of WinXP. Some people like the "Sliver" color scheme instead of the "Blue" one. Some people hate the skinned look and revert to the "Classic" interface. The list goes on...
Certainly, a little bit of context switching in certain situations is better than having some scientist dictate what the Ultimate GUI (tm) should be? Generally speaking, if the basic layout and whatnot is basically the same, the human brain is pretty quick at readjusting itself. When I switch skins from "Classic" to some crazy skin I grabbed from the web, it doesn't take me THAT long to adjust myself.
I'll take the risk of losing 20 seconds of productivity to staring at an interface I think is absurdly ugly and can't stand to look at for the better part of my waking hours.
-Jayde
Measuring GUIs (Score:2)
You can f.e. create two alternative GUIs, get some testers that are representative of your target group and give em typical tasks (test cases). You then record how long it takes these two groups to finish the tasks without help.
There exist verified tables of typical times and simple formulae that let you estimate times required for basic actions. (Like switch between mouse and keyboard or 'how long does it take to click a button of this size that is so far away'.) Tools making use of this (like GOMS) can help you quantify interfaces even before testing.
Large parts of GUI design are quantifiable.
Re:Science as opposed to pratical application (Score:2)
This is, in fact, a very valid argument, and having read Raskin's book, I was very surprised to see him dimiss it in such an arrogant way. To quote from his book, "The Humane Interface:"
"As has been observed in a number of experiments, an interface that optimizes productivity is not necessarily an interface that optimzes subjective ratings." (p. 49)
I do agree with Raskin that current user interface offer too much customization and that most of the options don't really make sense. But I very much oppose the arrogant attitude that he takes in this interview. People shouldn't be forced to work with tools they don't like just because it increases productivity a little. In fact, in the long term, thinking that you could improve something (which might be scientifically wrong, but that's not the point) and not being permitted to do might cause you to be frustrated and decrease your productivity in the long term.
Arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't understand the point that Raskin's trying to make here. That a UI shouldn't even allow changing colours? That seems pretty draconian. That people might change your settings behind your back, so there shouldn't be any settings? That seems pretty incoherant. That a system shouldn't automatically save settings without some way to undo the change easily? Good advice, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the question that was asked.
What is the point of this anecdote, and why is it here?Re:Arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
Customize all you like, but the interface should be smart enough to recognize that certain cases is a "no no".
Re:Color-blindness and blindness (Score:2)
So because we can't make the interface smart enough to recognize and avoid all pathological configurations, we shouldn't bother to put in code to deal with those that are recognizable? Amazing logic.
How Orwellian... (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole argument also completely ignores the fact that the user interface is increasingly moving off the desktop and onto the net - advanced Flash web sites and even html sites can have their own user interfaces that have nothing to do with the OS or programs you're running and that have their own learning curve to deal with. In fact, for my job, I'd say I deal more with web-based interfaces than I do with my OS interface. Is this guy really going to argue that every single web site, no matter what the content, should have the exact same interface for consistency's sake?
I couldn't really care less if somebody has to spend 10 minutes acclimating themselves to my own preferences on my own computer, and I accept that I will probably have to do the same if I use someone else's (how often *do* people use each other's computers, anyway?). I don't personally see what the big freakin' deal is, especially if skinning allows me and everybody else around me to feel just a little bit more expressive, creative, and downright human in what's increasingly becoming a sanitized and overly regulated world - especially at the office. If I want to put a friggin' Final Fantasy X wallpaper on my office computer, it isn't up to this guy to tell me a plain white background would somehow make me more "productive".
Thinking outside the Jef... (Score:2, Funny)
I think the adoption of fully skinnable GUI that is built into the OS is the way to go. When that happens, the OS will be able to allow the customizations to follow the USER instead of staying with the MACHINE -- like the limited way login preferences are currenly used.
That way your Britney Spears themed desktop will appear no matter what computer you log into in your workgroup.
Problem solved. Everybody's happy.
Bogus arguments (Score:2, Insightful)
Third, I have a problem with this idiotic "logic":
(paraphrased from the interview)
"one time, I set some guy's font color to red and his background to red. He couldn't see anything. Therefore, all interface customization is bad."
That's like saying that because I can paint a fake door onto someone's wall and cause confusion, paint should not be manufactured.
It must be fun to spend a day with Jef.
Amazing over-focus (Score:3, Insightful)
If I said we ought to design a really, really good steering wheel, and then design a car to support it, everyone (except perhaps Mr. Raskin) would say I was a fscking moron. And they'd be right.
It's not a failure of the OS engineer if the UI sucks, it's a failure of the UI designer. Computers and operating systems are built to provide raw power for people to do things, and the job of the UI designer is to present that power to the user in a way he or she can understand and apply it. It obviously isn't easy, but to hear Mr. Raskin tell it, if he gave you a Lamborghini with a square steering wheel, it's the fault of the guys who designed the engine.
Pure hooey. I'll start taking these UI creampuffs seriously when one of them finds an intuitive and simple way to provide me with a GUI with even one feature as elegant and powerful as the CLI pipe and redirect symbols. Until then, they're just arrogant toy designers.
Re:Amazing over-focus (Score:2)
Your straw man is fascinating. Let me elaborate on what Raskin meant.
With Linux, there was first the kernel and the command line. Then there was XFree, then GNOME and so on, and each of these layers had to be built with the previous layer in mind. In short, they were building 'up from the kernel'.
What made the MacOS so popular is that they started with the interface. They made an interface that people could relate to (desk top, folders, files, and a trash can), and then designed from there. This is building 'down from the user'.
The difference? In the first example, the most important thing is the kernel and how the kernel wants to do things, and everything else follows that, up and up the layers of abstraction until you get to the very last, which is the user interface. The kernel is written, and then the shells are built on top of that, and then the drawing routines are built with those in mind, and then the GUI (say 'desktop environment') is built with that in mind.
In the second, the most important thing is the user, and how they will interact with the system. The design then flows down, and each progressive layer takes the previous one into account. The user interface is designed with the user in mind, and then the drawing routines are designed with the user interface in mind (and maybe the developers, but they're people too), and so on, and so forth.
To fix your straw man, phrase it thusly.
'If I said we ought to design a car with the driver and passengers in mind and then work from there, instead of starting with the engine and drive mechanisms and fitting the people in wherever there was room...'
Seems to sound like a sensible design to me.
The point he's making, in short, is that of all the components of a usable system (i.e. not one that sits in a corner and does nothing), the user is the absolute most important, bar none.
--Dan
Raskin is missing a fundamental issue (Score:2)
Either Mr. Raskin is speaking about something different than what I understand, or he is missing a fundamental issue: one size does NOT fit all.
My understanding of "skinning" and "themes" is they are the means by which to modify the UI colors, fonts, background images, etc. to my liking. And certainly some choices are generally more effective -- more usable -- than others. But these decisions are made based on aggregate data; they are geared towards the "standard user." But what if you're not a standard user? Are you forced to use an interface that is not optimal for you? If Raskin has his way, then yes.
In contrast, a most staid of industries, the automobile companies, have been moving away from such an attitude over the years. The seat size, pedal placement, steering-wheel tilt angle, etc. (car UI) are all based on a standard driver; an average human. But recently, they've been providing drivers features to modify these parameters: tilt steering wheel, 8-way adjustable power seats with lumbar support, pedal positions (we can "theme" our car). This is because one size does not fit all. And if I can tweak the interface to best fit myself, my physical function, and my tastes (for comfort), then I will better enjoy the device and better use it.
His claim that changing the desktop will hinder productivity is largely like claiming that our ability to drive different cars is hurt by their various colors. I suppose Raskin and Henry Ford would get along famously, but I want to choose the color of my car.
And somehow, I don't think my mom will have problems driving my green car, even though hers is "skinned" with a white theme.
Re:Raskin is missing a fundamental issue (Score:2)
Move the gas pedal to the center console, and shape it like an F15 throttle. Make the steering wheel move along an arc, and not just rotate. Tilt the seat back to 55 degrees. Move the gear shift so that you can nudge it with the elbow of the arm you control the throttle with. Make all the dash indicators green on yellow. Change every icon, like the 'oil', 'seatbelt', and so on, to various smiley faces. Change what units the spedometer and RPM gauges are. Move the radio controls to where the gas pedal was.
Chances are, someone, somewhere, would like this design. It actually sounds kind of neat to me even, at least in part, though I don't know if I'd actually want to use it. However, if someone changed a car this drastically and it fit them perfectly, is that ok? It's their car. But if you got in, would you be able to drive it without an explanation of what goes where? Even then, it'd be nearly impossible.
This is the point he's trying to make. Not changing colours and fonts, though that DOES have a subconscious impact as he points out, but rather changing the way the interface works, or even largely the way it looks, can be confusing.
First time I ran Sonique (which was also the last time, for this among other reasons), it took me a while to figure out how to close the damned thing, because it was so innovatively 'skinned'. There was no obvious clue as to what goes where, and I had to completely learn a new interface just to get rid of it, let alone to use it.
This is more of what Raskin is talking about, not just a few colours (though colours makes a good point too).
--Dan
UI That Help Users Think Versus Input (Score:2)
Switching machines (Score:2)
(maybe Jef spent too much time around single-user Apple machines and not enough time on UNIX, hehe =)
Rhetoric, not logic (Score:3, Insightful)
What an unfortunate opinion piece. For someone extolling the virtues of a scientific approach to HCI, it's almost criminal to simultaneously engage in fatuous argument. It colours the topic by association. Why is it bad argument?
The other flaws in the argument fall into one of these two categories. For example, that there is only a choice between (1) a single customisable interface across a platform, and (2) other users of a machine being stuck with an unfamiliar interface. As other commenters have noted, this is silly. The clear sensible option is per-user preferances, and ideally ones that migrate with the user.
Lastly he argues that adding interface customizability enlarges applications. This is certainly true. He naturally fails to mention that this is a trade-off against the possibility that the user of an application may be able to work more efficiently as a result, if they make the interface more suited to themselves.
As with all these sorts of things, it's tedious and sometimes difficult to sort out the fallacious arguments from the valid, spot the omitted facts, and distinguish between truth and spin. There are some valid points buried in that rubbish, but the Jef and the interviewer do their readers no favours by using such points as support for an argument that is deceptive and unreasonable.
How about some intellectual honesty? Or is that just too much to ask?
User Interface Consistency (Score:5, Funny)
Jakob Nielsen [useit.com] would say the spelling hurts the usability of Jef's name because it goes against our conditioning. Everywhere he goes, he must bear the burden of correcting people who misspell his name.
I'd say Jef is either quite angry with his parents' creative streak or there's something inconsistent about his behavior.
Re:User Interface Consistency (Score:2)
What do he have to show? (Score:2)
I agree with him in many ways, but he is way too arrogant, and doesn't have nearly enough behind his so called science. A uniform way of using the OS and applications is very important, especially for the non nerds. If you teach a class, and the computer the person then sits behind at his/her new job looks completely different, everything will be lost.
But to use novice computer users as some form of basis for how an interface should work, it's just plain dumb. I belive one needs to put into science the art of making interfaces, but before that we definitly need to get one thing straight, there are different people using computers, and most of them will spend quite some time infront of the glow of the screen, those should be just as important as the novice. After all, how would cars look if all of them were built for peoples first try? I am sure they wouldn't come to the Viper that way...
User accounts. (Score:2)
An intuitive interface that solves that problem is easy to design. A big password box, and a big 'permission denied' and he wont be confused when he tries to use someone elses account.
Why Not Store Preferences on the Net? (Score:2, Interesting)
Raskin makes a good point that it's a pain in the butt when you switch to someone else's computer, and they have skins set up in some weird friggin' way that takes time to adjust to.
Various posters here have made the point that it's human nature to want to customize things. Which is true, but this reply is an inadequate response to Raskin's argument that time is wasted whenever you jump to a computer with a foreign skin.
So here's my humble little proposal, and, to my knowledge an original idea. This problem could largely be solved simply by using the net. Why not have a website or registry somewhere that stores YOUR OWN personalized skin? That way, when I go onto your computer and am horified by your choice of screen colors, button preferences, etc...all's I need to do is visit UIpreferences.com and type "Schlemphfer" and my password. Voila. Now your machine has preferences identical to my personal system.
When I finish using your machine, I'd then hit a button which would restore the machine to the owner's preferences.
Seems to me that prior to the net, when we all used non-networked computers, the case for Raskin's "adhere to One True Way" argument was far stronger.
KDE, Gnome, and UI Consistency (Score:2)
What I think is really interesting about this is the fact that most of us use apps from both environments, mixing and matching per our preferences. I personally use both Konqui and Mozilla, Kmail, xmms, and gaim combined with kyahoo, as well as StarOffice 6 in a KDE desktop, but that's just me.
The fact is, that a consistent UI doesn't wind up being that important when it comes to application functionality. People learn to use their apps. This isn't just the case in the Linux world, people still use the weird Kai interfaces for instance, or the quirky winamp UI. Hell, even the big boys break their own rules with their media players, and no one really cares that much. The fact is, if the program has a good amount of functionality, the user will learn the UI (witness the shitty UI in Napster) to access what the app offers.
But then again... I am posting this fairly drunk at a very weird hour, which is always a bad idea, so take it as you will.
What about multi-user environments (Score:2)
Isn't this exactly what multi-user environments are about?
It is just plain arrogant to have everyone do things exactly the same way. People have different tastes. Perhaps one person needs larger fonts because they have poor eyesight, but the larger fonts just annoy the hell out of everyone else?
The "right way" is just to set up a multiuser enironment and a networked file-system, so that all machines are equal, but all users can do what they want. Almost all current operating systems are multi-user in some way or another.
What... (Score:2)
Throw away users (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligatory Remark (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory Remark (Score:2)
The change in the UI wizard's voice was astounding. Suddenly it became menacing, powerful, harsh as stone. A shadow seemed to pass over the high sun, and the porch for a moment grew dark. All trembled, and the programmers stopped their ears.
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imlapplris,
Raskin the Arrogant," said Jobrond, as the shadow passed and the company breathed once more.
"And let us hope that none will ever speak it here again," answered Raskin.
...
A different view (Score:2)
It's easy to get used to something and forget about its minor annoyances. There might be something better around the corner which you don't look for, because you are already using the current UI subconsciously. I might even say that it's a sign of 'good life' to try and do everything consciously: question what you are doing, why are you doing it. Ask yourself honestly if your current UI has shortcomings.
If you've done Monte Carlo analysis you may know that sometimes your algorithm gets stuck in a local minimum. You have to introduce some randomness if you want to find the global minimum. Even if you're comfortable with your current UI it might be worth trying out others, you could find something even better.
This approach works in other field as well, but certainly not everywhere. The problem with the mathematical picture is that you're never sure if you've found the global minimum. So for example, if your girlfriend is not perfect in every respect, it's not always wise to dump her in search for something better... fortunately window managers don't mind :-)
A simple solution to tranportability (Score:2)
I agree skins get a lot more attention than they deserve, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to say they are a productivity killer
ever notice? (Score:2)
It's human nature - the subconsious desire to at least perform some token act of control to demonstrate one's dominance, even if it's trivial in nature. It's just the way humans are. UI Nazis who come up with obtuse rationalizations to justify things like this article are just subconciously trying to enforce their own dominance on the situation, like the priest who chooses those non-movable pews for his church.
Next thing you know, they won't even permit us to even move or resize windows. (like all the various apps that launch and run "full screen" - - - iMovie anyone?).
You people have clearly never read the book (Score:2)
For those of you on multiple systems that try and achieve consistency between all of them, despite different UI paradigms, you're on the right track.
For those of you that say that Jef Raskin doesn't seem to know that you need different UIs for different applications, he does.
And for those of you that think that a unified UI would be somehow heretical, you're wrong. One of the huge draws of Windows today is everyone knows how to use it. Never mind that it's complete crap, filled with design snafus EVERYWHERE. It's consistent from machine to machine, and that's appreciated. They've done actual *scientific* tests where people have worked with a customized (by them) interface, and a standard interface. Very often, even though people FEEL that they're working faster with their personalized interface, they aren't.
Most of you commenting on this story are working off a gut reaction, and are just mumbling the same things over and over again. "*I* like it, so it must be better." You're probably wrong, and you're probably provably wrong.
There're a lot of elements to interface consistency, too many to explain in this comment, and too many to explain in that dinky little article, so of course Jef comes off as arrogant. But there's a reason that he's widely excepted as a master of Interfaces. He's studied them, and he's done it as a scientist.
Go out, read Jef's book. You'll think him a lot less arrogant, and you'll certainly be able to see all the incorrect interface designs around you. If nothing else, after you read the book, you've got a solid basis for criticizing the Windows UI, other than saying 'it sucks'.
Re:You people have clearly never read the book (Score:2)
The Mac interface is by no means perfect, and more eloquent people than I can explain the reason why the trashcan behaves the way it does. Moreover, it really looks like you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to the dock. Programs that are running are marked with an arrow. Programs that aren't running don't have any visual indication of their status at all. They're just icons.
It seems to me that you really have no idea what you're talking about, no quantitative results to back yourself up, and no qualifications to show otherwise. In fact, I find it hard to take an Anonymous Coward's opinion seriously, since you can't even be bothered to actually give me someone to respond to for real.
Portable skills - portable skins (Score:2)
What he should really be arguing for, then, is portable user-associated UI skins; if any computer you sit down at automatically calls up your preferred skin and thus reconfigures its appearance to match your expectations, the productivity loss to distraction disappears. The means to do this aleady exists to an extent, via centrally exported home directories with stored preference files. The pieces still missing are the usual Linux-UI gripes: not all apps listen to global preferences (e.g. non-Gnome apps don't care what the Gnome/GTK theme is), and some apps actively use their own separate theming system (e.g. Mozilla). This is why we heard a few weeks ago that RMS wants Gnome and KDE to work on making their skinning systems interoperable. Of course, even doing that wouldn't help with the army of older apps that use Tck/Tk, Motif, etc., as their interface layer.
Some distros are working on this kind of thing; Redmond Linux (sorry, Lycoris/LX) comes to mind. All they really do is decide on a desktop environment, and then choose only apps that work well with that environment, including only those that listen to the global skinning system.
Anyway, Raskin's bitching about the availability of skinnable UIs isn't going to get him anywhere, since all the interesting Linux interfaces are free software. Suppose for a nanosecond he convinced Gnome, KDE, etc, to remove themability in favor of his pet UberUI. Fine, five minutes later any developers who disagreed have posted their own versions of the software with theming back in. If Raskin really wants the One True UI to dominate, the answer is to get some developers together and write the damn thing himself -- if it's as good as he says it can be, everyone will use it. If not
Interesting Reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
He forgot one thing though... (Score:2)
But Jef... Where is the fun? I use skins because
- they are beautiful
- they make me feel like I am in a science fiction world
- i don't care so much about productivity as my boss do.
In some degree, a CLI is a consistent UI that adheres to Jef's principles.
Even if Jef has studied on how to make me 69% more efficient doing my work on a computer, I still don't want a boring UI that is calibrated to squeeze as much juice as they can out of me.
PPA, the girl next door.
Organizational hierarchy comes first! Come on! (Score:2)
Obviously a Network Admin vs. an Office User vs. an Artist have have very different goals. If you were to forget completely what you know about computers, and imagine any one of these people sitting down and turning a machine on, what are 5-8 broad categories of things these people would be trying to accomplish? Let me take a quick shot at it. The artist may want to do some video editing, some web work or maybe some sketches on their tablet. The Office user might need the use an office suite and maybe a few simple games(for lunch break of course). The network admin might want to configure some server applications or manipulate the configuration of the machine. All of these users would likely use email and the web too, these could be in an Internet category.
I propose a system to standardize broad categories of applications. Photoshop for example could register itself under Graphic Arts, Image Editing and Web Design. Image Editing and Web Design would be sub-categories of Graphic Arts. A cd-ripper could register itself under MP3 and Audio, with MP3 as a sub-category of Audio. An office suite would register under Office. A video tool like Final Cut Pro under Graphic Arts and Video, with Video as a subcategory of Graphic Arts.
The interface would sift applications down the hiearchy, only having them appear in the lowest levels. Photoshop for example would appear under Graphic Arts->Image Editing and Graphic Arts->Web Design but not under Graphic Arts. Yes, it would appear twice, but the sensible organization would make it unambiguaous how to find it. One of the few customizations allowed would be a feature to "bump up" an application so it appears in it's parent menu, for commonly used applications and users with few installed applications in a particular category. To allow this option in a usable way, a customization screen listing of all icons within their hierarchy would be suitable, with a trinary radio-like toggle associated with each. The toggle could switch between an up arrow(bump up), X or check-mark. Another customization would be the ability to shut off a sub-category and have it's options selectively bumped up to the parent, using similar trinary toggles associated with each sub-category.
This idea hasn't been developed much and could probably use some revision but I think the basic idea is there and it shouldn't be much more complex than this. Maybe some of those snazzy open-source interfaces like Gnome and KDE could pull this off. At first users would have to manually categorize their applications, but with time applications could register with a standard database. Early on, a small app could even be made to search a file system and generate such a database using known pre-categorized programs. This could also be a good thing for the litestep people to try, to truly give their system a unique and useful interface, without the massive manual config file maintainence that comes with those added strengths.
This guy doesn't know programming very well (Score:2)
Every language has a goto that lets you jump to a specific label.
I use goto's all the time to keep from nesting if thens 50 levels deep. Or to jump out of a set of nested loops to a found or not found label. Goto's are one of the best feature of any language, but like any other feature, they are only good if they make the program easier to read and not harder to read.
I think his views on interface design are just as screwy. I hate many of the things on a Mac, but am unable to change them, because the OS won't let me. I prefer to have my min max and close buttons on the right hand side, because they are easier to use that way, when switching between mac, linux and windows. It is annoying to have them on the left hand side. I also hate how applications don't go away when you close their last screen.
--
What I want to be able to do is to make any changes I want to the user interface and save these changes to a web site on the internet. Then I want to goto any computer and set a preference to down load all my settings from the web site. Then I want the OS to always act like I want it to act. No matter what OS it is.
It is time to divorce the behavior of the GUI from the OSes and make that a seperate fully skinnable layer that is fully cross platform and should control even how applications of certain types layout and present their controls. Then I can enjoy the same computing experience that works for me on any system that I am forced to use. Not screwed up system that some self proclaimed GUI designer has decided is best for me.
I think he's stuck in 1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of the interfaces done up until that time were unique; 1-2-3 had a unique interface, Wordperfect had a unique interface.
What apple did that was revolutionary wasn't the GUI, it was they defined an environment for all programs to use which enforced a common user interface. The net result was groudbreaking because a lot of the basics were the same in each application. Remember, WYSIWYG was the hot buzz word (words?) back then, so the entire frame of reference was different.
So, the evolution so far was:
No interface -> Application Specific Interface -> Common User Interface
What's wrong with this picture? Well back in the day when the CUI was the hot ticket, the idea of desktop "metaphors" was in vogue. The trash can was there because you understood that deleting a document was like throwing away a piece of paper on your desk. So in fact, the interface of the Mac was supposed to be a metaphor for a user's desktop (in fact, its still called a desktop).
But a desktop isn't a good metaphor for recording music, or taking pictures, or doing an unlimited number of tasks.
Why shouldn't the garden hose have the same interface as the typewriter? Because each interface exploits the unique features and attributes of that type of device.
So in 2001, computers are several orders of magnitude more powerful than 1984 and we really have the ability to create much closer metaphors.
In fact, you could say this argues against a common user interface. It says the interface should be the best to do the job at that time.
I fall somewhere in the middle. There is clearly a value of having the idea of a desktop metaphor. There is value in having experience framework for doing computer related tasks. But ideally there is a balance between consistency and the best interface for the task at hand.
So I find Jef's interview interesting, but I think he's still stuck in a 1988 period of UI design. No offense to him, he's a smart guy and I don't discount what he says, but based on the comment's he's made, I think the computer world has passed him by.
The two can co-exist (Score:2)
Jef says:
No, you'd be admitting that your way may not be the best way FOR ME. How arrogant can you be?
Unfortunatly current skinning technology is pretty shoddy IMHO. Every time I try a new skin somewhere, I'm disapointed in some way. Current skinning technology is not customizable! You choose someone elses favorite design and are forced to live with its style. It's like having choose between a sports car in hot pink, and an SUV in green... what if I want a sports car in green?
There needs to be finer grained control. Key bindings and pretty buttons should not be glued together. I may like the default look of a plane MS windows style interface, but I may not like the key bindings and the sounds; those things need to be customizable seperately and easily.
Skinning/theming systems do not *have* to compromise consistency (between user's machines, sure, but I believe that's the users problem), as long as they're done properly. A really good example of how to do it very wrong is Mozilla. Why would I want my web browser to look completely different than any other app on my desktop?? When done this way, it truly does kill consistency.
The basic low level design of X makes it even worse, because skinning does not effectivaly (if at all) cross the desktop boundary; KDE has a theming engine, Gnome has another... For skinning to really be effective, there needs to be a lower level look and feel engine that all desktop systems can be built on top of. This would also greatly reduce the amount of work needed to build a desktop system.
I think it's time in the evolution of UI design to take another big step forward; I think enough is understood about how to build good interfaces that we (the programming community) could design something that is both consistent and customizable, and modular enough to survive the next 20 years of evolution.
I could go on and on of course, about the short-comings of current UI implementations, but I believe that no matter how poorly current systems might be designed, I refuse to agree with anyone who believes that science can negate the need to provide people with customizability, or that customizability is a bad thing. While I agree that many (if not all) current skinning implementations are horrible, I completely disagree with Jef's assertion that skinning/theming is a bad idea in general.
UI Science Utopia vs. Reality (Score:2, Interesting)
Did an article have to be written to state that? It is just common sense. Consistency is obviously the ideal in multi-computer work environments such as computer labs, POS terminals, etc.
However, it is preposterous to assume that everyone works like that. Many, like I, work on one computer consistently. Let us for the moment forget the "Gee golly, I'm expressing myself" customization arguments. I use my computer at least 90% of the time I use computers. And this is the truth: My customizations are all geared to make me more productive. And this is another truth: They do make me more productive.
For us unicomputartians, eliminating customizations is ridiculous. Should I have to sacrifice my productivity 90% of the time I am working on my computer so that I may be more productive the other 10% of the time I'm working on other computers?
Jef does make a good point:
"Of course, there are no really well-designed interfaces out there good enough to prove the point that you don't need preferences."
Maybe that is why customization is essential to my productivity. Maybe a utopian UI will eliminate the need for customization. I doubt it. Not when you put humans into the UI equation.
This should be obvious. Don't we as people interact differently with different people? Do you interact exactly the same with your mom as you do with your friends? Do you tell your mom dirty jokes while kissing your friends and telling them you love them? Well, you might, but it is still a sure bet that you adapt your interaction to the person you are interacting with. In essence, you CUSTOMIZE your interface for the benefit of yourself and the individuals your are interacting with. Why do you do this? Because each person you interact with is different and your relationship with them is different.
This can be made analogous to our interaction with computers. Each person's aptitudes and behaviors are unique. Also, our relationships with our computers vary: In other words, people do different things with their computers.
Can one UI be developed that can most effectively deal with ALL the differences in people and ALL the different work situations? Without the benefit of customization?
Heck no.
Maybe in some utopian parallel universe, it could be done. I highly doubt it. And it certainly will not be done in the present software development environment of feature bloat and "we'll fix the bugs after release."
Despite Jef's insightfulness, he does make some silly arguments:
"But what if you say to me, "So what, I like it better my way even if it doesn't work as well." Then, if I give you preferences, I am abdicating my role as a responsible designer."
Yes, I've seen people customize their interface in a way that makes them less efficient. But these people are determined to be less efficient no matter what UI you put in front of them. It is well recognized that there are organized, efficient people, and those that are not.
And if a person is stupid enough to change their colors to red on red, then that person is going to have a hard enough time dressing himself, let alone use a computer.
So it remains true: consistency for the group, customization for the individual.
You can't have Yin without your Yang.
Ihuj
ihuj_at_yahoo_dot_com
Skins are not a requirement for customizability (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, take Windows Media Player 6 versus Windows Media Player 7.
WMP7 is skinnable, but WMP6 is not. WMP7 has a "WMP6" skin to make it look like WMP6. No problem, right? Wrong.
WMP6 was not skinnable, but it gave me a pretty good degree of control over what widgets got displayed. You want a minimalist interface with only the video window and the buttons? Fine, toggle a few checkboxes and half of the clutter is gone.
Unfortunately, in WMP7, the "WMP6" skin mimics the default look of WMP6 and nothing more. It includes all of the widgets and all of the clutter. There are no checkboxes to hide or show certain widgets.
Well, if you don't like it, just edit the skin, right?
You have got to be kidding if you expect a normal user to modify skins or to make his/her own.
Maybe WMP isn't the best example of a skinning implementation. I'm sure that there are some really good implementations out there with easily editable skins. In general, however, most of the skinnable programs I've seen aren't much better, nor are their skins so easy to edit that my mom could do it. What's worse is that a lot of these applications seem to use skins as an excuse to ignore usability in their default skins. Hey, if the community doesn't like it, they can't make their own skin, right?
You want customizability? Fine. How about giving the user a choice between skins or not? Me, I'd rather have no skins, with a faster, well-designed interface that's consistent with the OS.
Skins may have their uses, but they aren't some magic panacea.
Re:Every single car has "brake on left, gas on rig (Score:2)
Just because somebody might choose stupidly, that's not a reason not to let them choose. Just because I can paint a fake door onto a house and cause confusion, we should forbid paint? That's the point of *customizability* you know, that if I rented a car with the pedals switched I would switch them back goddammit. Everyone is arguing how terrible customization is, just because if you customize it one way I can't customize it back? Sheesh.
Re:I was quite impressed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I was quite impressed... (Score:5, Interesting)
raskin's attitude in this article does worry me tho. he is a very smart man, but i dont like the 'my way or the highway' attitude he is taking. i think freedom to customize can greatly enhance the computing experience when it is based off of what he would call a functional 'scientific' gui model. I have been reading stuff raskin said for many years about GUIs, and i have agreed with him for the most part. but i can only listen for so long before i have to say 'Put up or shut up.' Mr Raskin, please show us this gui you have in mind for all of us. Please stop talking about it endlessly and just do it. You can rag on Steve Jobs all you want... but to quote Steve, 'Real artists ship.'
Re:I was quite impressed... (Score:2)
The other main thing to credit Jobs with was that he shipped. There's some question in my mind whether Raskin could have shipped any product at Apple at all. He was incredibly focused on his vision, to the exclusion of anything else. Jobs was the one who came up with the slogan "Real Artists Ship."
Check out the book Insanely Great (by Stephen Levy I think) for more details on the history of the Mac. There's pretty decent coverage of the Jobs vs Raskin battle.
Re:Linux, and other things (Score:2)
The dynamic pull-down menu's on the 2000 versions of MS Office tools are another example: probably well-intended, but generally annoying, therefore bad
But this is precisely the kind of thing Raskin was speaking against - making judgements on UI components based simply one person's opinion - I happen to really like the new-style menus, but until we actually do some tests to measure it, who can say who is right?