OSNews

What a load of palaver. When will naive Apple fanboys cease spouting dubious usability and computer history notions, as if they are facts.

From the article: "But there is another fairly recent innovation, which might have just as profound implications. We're speaking of the contextual user interface... Thanks to Apple, we have seen a liberating movement towards simplistic, contextual interfaces"

Contextual interfaces intended for consumers are not recent, and they proliferated long before Apple Computer existed. For example, by the late 1960s, bank ATMs gave the customer a set of choices, and, after a choice was made, gave the customer a new context of choices. Hence, early ATMs featured a contextual interface: http://www.thocp.net/hardware/atm.htm ATMs were everywhere by the late 1970s, when Apple Computer started.

Contextual menus certainly must have appeared in the computer world before they appeared in bank ATMs. Such menus even existed early on in Microsoft products: in the DOS installation, and in early Windows "Wizards" with contextual, step-by-step interfaces.

In addition, menus with changing contexts appeared long ago in various other devices: vending machines (the first menu queries selection, then the next menu queries to "give change or make another selection"), early video games, juke boxes, etc.

Furthermore, contextual UIs are not limited to machines with screens. Any early, phone answering system that offered primary and secondary sets of choices constitutes a contextual UI. The same goes for any early board game in which the player lands on a square and is then given options on the next move.


The article describes the earlier Windows interface: "Every imaginable choice was thrown at users at once and it was up to the poor user to figure out what to do."

How does the writer come to this conclusion? The only thing that he gives to support this assertion is a partial screenshot of what looks like Microsoft Word with every toolbar displayed. How many times has anyone seen Word (or any other Windows app) deployed with all toolbars displayed? This can't be the default set-up -- some user must have turned on all those toolbars.

Even if it were the default set-up, one would have to be a complete tard to not to eventually realize how to turn off the toolbars. Also, the meaning of most of the buttons are self-evident, and most of the button icons are used in multiple OSs.

Windows applications have never really been more or less complicated than those in any other OS. They made extensive use contextual dialog boxes. In addition, some applications were/are multi-platform.

And, again, the Windows wizards always gave simple contextual menus, one-at-a-time.


The article continues its Windows description: "To cram more information onto the screen, the interfaces of that era used tabs. At some point Microsoft invented the ultimate UI element - a tab with a scroll button in the end which allowed the user to page through hidden tabs."

First of all, how does the author know that Microsoft invented the tab scroll button/bar? He doesn't supply any proof nor any reference to support this claim.

Secondly, usability-wise, what is wrong with having a scroll button/bar for tab overflow?

Thirdly, the Mac way of handling tab overflow seems to be having a 2D, "double arrow" within the tab that is on the far right: http://i25.tinypic.com/hv59xz.jpg How is the Mac method better, usability-wise? Also, it seems that, in the case of Safari, the arrow system does not allow one to drag the overflow tabs -- a hindrance.


The article continues in the next paragraph: "Another philosophy of the old UI approach was that the user wants to see all information all the time."

The author is repeating the point he made in his previous paragraph. So, again, how does he come to this conclusion?


"... there was a myth spread that users were stupid and would not be able to understand a non-standard UI."

What? Where did that myth originate? Has anyone else heard this myth? Maybe it was spread by Mac fanboys.


"The myth was supported by the fact that a lot of people do not respond well to sophisticated visualizations, like graphs, heat maps, or treemaps. While this is true, it doesn't mean that people can not figure out new user interfaces."

Huh? What does he mean by "people do not respond well"? Sounds vague. No support, but the author must have done extensive field testing on his own.

Graphs and charts are supposed make it easier for people to visualize data. However, what do such visual aids have to do with a computer GUI?

Actually, treemaps do help considerably in the usability of complex devices, such as computers. For instace, a user who understands the directory structure of a partition(s) will have a much easier time navigating and finding files in several situations.

Not emphasizing to users this basic directory tree concept could be the biggest usability blunder ever (by both Apple and Microsoft), responsible for generations of helpless computer users.


"The proof comes from Apple, which continuously innovates with new UIs for its software products."

What has Apple innovated in regards to the computer GUI, other than the trash can and, perhaps, Expose?


"Another important breakthrough in the contextual UI approach is the realization that function is more important than design."

I think he means that function is more important than style. Function is integral to the design (hopefully).


"The famous Apple mantra that design is the function is true, but not everyone can design like Apple."

Meaning "style-is-the-function" rules Apple's design, hence we have items like the round mouse, monitors that can't tilt down, default jelly-blob window buttons having minuscule click-able areas and lacking intuitive symbols, etc. So, it seems to be true -- not everyone can design like Apple.


Earlier in the article, the author suggests the philosophy behind the Windows GUI: "User interface was not the place to be innovative. It was considered unorthodox and even dangerous to present the interface in non-standard ways because everyone believed that users were, to be frank, stupid, and wouldn't want to deal with anything other than what they were used to."

This GUI philosophy sounds more like that of current Apple fanboys than that of any other computer user -- fans of Apple are always dogmatic about how consistency is so important to usability and about how important it is to "dumb-down" the GUI. Even the author showers praise on Apple for dumbing-down the Mac GUI. If Apple didn't believe "that users were stupid," why would they need to dumb-down their GUI?

I should have stopped reading at the "Thanks to Apple..." line. Can't read any more. This article is a bilious, Apple-adoring mess.

Edited 2008-05-16 12:20 UTC