[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Styles for widget placement (real comment)
From:       "Steven D'Aprano" <dippy () mikka ! net ! au>
Date:       2000-06-21 14:59:27
[Download RAW message or body]

Stephan Heigl wrote:
> 
> In 1983 Apple's Lisa featured the first GUI. So the basic concept is as old
> as myself. And that's progress?

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

That's not to say that the original Apple GUI isn't broken - its best
suited to single user, single task computers, not today's powerful
multitasking and multiuser machines. But just because it is old
doesn't mean its bad.

Later, Stephan commented:
> 
> I am only interrested
> if there's any research on new userinterfaces?
> If yes, do you know some URLs? 

Try Tog, who was one of the original interface designers on the Mac,
back in the days when almost nobody outside of Apple believed in the
GUI. He is very critical of today's lack of innovation in UI design.
http://www.asktog.com/

> On Mit, 21 Jun 2000, Thomas wrote:
> > > Yes, more positioning. The text itself isn't the real "problem".
> >
> > So, what do you propose that could be configurable.
> 
> e.g. the layout of common dialogs.

I don't quite follow you. Do you mean something like:

standard dialog               vs        new dialog

________________________                ________________________
|                       |               |                       |
| [Text.....]           |               | [Btn]          [Btn]  |
|                       |               |                       |
|           [Btn] {Btn] |               |          [Text.....]  |
|                       |               |                       |
-------------------------               -------------------------

If that is all you mean, I don't see the point. Remember, people are
trained from early childhood to read from left to right and top to
bottom - at least in all Western languages that I can think of.
Interfaces must follow that same convention to avoid being difficult
for users.

> I hope you understand what i mean. Don't know how to explain this any
> other way.

Sorry, I don't understand. Maybe you could sketch a very small diagram
(in JPG format) and post it? Unless posting binaries is against the
group's ettiquitte.


Also, Thomas Zander wrote:
> 
> there are programmers who want to get the job
> done, and there are HCI people who want it to be usable. This is, and will
> always be, a conflict of interrests.

It should not be a conflict. A good interface makes it easy to get
things done. If an interface is hard to use, it is a bad interface,
and if a program is so underpowered it can't do the job it is designed
for, then the best UI in the world isn't going to change the fact that
it is useless.

Power and usability should go hand-in-hand. If they don't, then the
designer/programmer has failed.


-- 
Steven D'Aprano

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]