Independent Human Interface Guidelines 245
An anonymous reader alerts us to the IndieHIG Wiki, which is an independent effort to pick up the ball that Apple has dropped on human interface guidelines (can you spell FTFF?). From the wiki: "The IndieHIG project is an initiative created out of the necessity to document the new look and feel aspects of the Mac OS X experience, outside of the supervision of Apple itself. The project is not intended to replace, but rather to supplement the somewhat dated Apple Human Interface Guidelines (HIG). There are many instances of Apple using new and experimental interface styles, spurring developers to emulate these styles in their own applications. Unfortunately, because Apple provides neither guidelines nor code for developers to work with, the implementation of these interface styles and features by third parties can be lopsided and directionless. The IndieHIG intends to change this by providing a comprehensive set of guidelines governing the use and appearance of new, undocumented interface elements so that their implementation by third party developers adheres to the unwritten standards that Apple has set."
UI standards wouldn't hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb mistake, Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Giddyup! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:2, Insightful)
http://images.apple.com/macosx/leopard/images/ind
Do the toolkits just suck that much?
Do the developers just suck that much?
Shit brown desktop colours.
Jarring font alignments, positioning, and rendering.
Amateurish UI element spacing and layouts.
And the first person to say the worlds 'pretty' or 'skin' gets a beating...
Re:Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to state the obvious and get flamed for it: "bazaar-style" open source works for developing things developers want, and not so well for developing things they don't personally care about. Since novice users are--almost by definition--not developers, UIs suitable for novices don't get developed very quickly. Various Linux distros are finally catching up, but that's only because you're starting to see more corporate/organized interest in open source development. "Scratching an itch" just doesn't work as a motivation for developing a polished UI, except for that rare developer with an overriding sense of aesthetic responsibility.
This isn't intended as a slight against FOSS developers--I've developed Open Source software my self (and not done a very good job on the interface because I didn't need it to be polished)--just an observation that people are most likely to volunteer their time to do things that interest them personally.
Re:Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you could provide specific examples of how, for instance, Gnome or KDE have "amateurish UI element spacing and layouts", that'd be useful. Otherwise, why talk?
Re:Giddyup! (Score:2, Insightful)
They're guidelines, not commandments. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, there are plenty of amazingly talented programmers who turn out to be rather shitty UI designers. While guidelines like the Mac OS X HIG are most useful in the hands of designers who already know what they're doing, I suppose as a cheat sheet for coders who have nowhere else to seek advice, they're better than nothing.
Re:Dumb mistake, Apple (Score:1, Insightful)
stuck up ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:UI standards wouldn't hurt (Score:2, Insightful)
Computer programs do not all have the same function. Photoshop does not do remotely the same job that gcc does, and neither are much like Doom. There's no reason for all programs to be force-fit into identical interfaces.
Aqua's a wimp. (Score:4, Insightful)
On SGI IRIX's 4Dwm, for example, if I use the window manager to minimise a window (by clicking on the minimise button, for example), it damn well minimises, no matter what state the window's application is in.
Why is Aqua's (and MS Windows's) window manager such a wimp? They have no authority over their windows at all. What kind of manager is that?
Re:Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe KDE & Gnome Folk Will Read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is. There is a UI principle: "a word is worth a thousand pictures." Icons are only useful if you already know them by sight and/or their meaning is painfully obvious, and even then only when there isn't too much visual clutter from a bunch of other icons around them making the user have to hunt for the particular one they want. The need for "Tooltips" is a clear sign of a bad UI. It always seemed to me that the MacOS got this, while Microsoft didn't. It's ironic that Apple which popularized icons as a UI element has always used them much more sparingly than Microsoft. It's as though Microsoft coming in later to the game said: "So they want pictures do they... well! We'll give them pictures out the yazoo" without ever fulling understanding the point of those "pictures".