The founder of the Open Graphics Project writes: "Good design and usability are very important. I haven't paid enough attention to the discussions between Linus and GNOME developers, so I can't address it directly. But what I can say is that a learning curve is not a bad thing. While it's good to think about the total novice, it's even more important to have consistent and logical mechanisms. This way, if someone has to learn something new to use the computer, they have to learn it only once. This is why I think it's good that Apple and Microsoft have UI development guides that encourage developers to make their apps act consistently with other apps in areas where their functionalities conceptually overlap. And this is where I start to get disappointed with GNU/X11/Linux systems."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-25
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-03-30
So if Microsoft and Apple have these UI development guides, why is it that every release of itunes looks different to the rest of OSX? Office XP had it's own menus, then 2003 went all blue. And Windows Media Player always looked different - then when they invented a new flashy UI, they gave WMP11 a different one again!
Yeah, okay, Linux is a long way from perfect in that regard, but if it's going to be criticised for it's inconsistency, can we at least find something to compare it to that is consistent itself?
You make a good point at the start. While they do have standards to adhere to, even they don't do it perfectly.
But the important thing here is that you notice when they go wrong -- the Office apps using off the wall window colors, WMP looking crazy, etc. Standards matter, and sticking to standards matters. That's the message to take home from all this.
Member since:2005-07-08
I guess the author of this article is unaware of the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines (HIG), which must be followed in order for an application to make it into the default GNOME desktop suite:
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/
KDE has a similar project that's a major part of the development process for KDE4:
http://wiki.openusability.org/guidelines/index.php/Main_Page
Free software desktops have a great advantage in the area of UI consistency because we have the notion of a cooperative community. In proprietary land, it's all about branding, marketing, and differentiation. There's absolutely no motivation for consistency. In free software, following the HIG can help expand your userbase significantly.
Member since:2005-09-27
The Hypocrite paradox.
People/Groups are not perfect they stretch and break their own rules. It doesn't mean their rules are bad or we shouldn't follow them. You pointed out a couple of apps that broke the rule while the bulk of the system follows the rules. Vs. Linux who concept of interface consistency is that there is some way to close the window that you opened. (most of the time)
Member since:2005-07-02
"You pointed out a couple of apps that broke the rule while the bulk of the system follows the rules. Vs. Linux who concept of interface consistency is that there is some way to close the window that you opened. (most of the time)"
Linux apps are increasingly consistent, while Windows apps are increasingly *less* consistent.
Not that it really matters. Consistency is overrated.
Member since:2007-01-30
If you've used iTunes before, you instantly understand how to interact with the next version, despite the visiual differences.
This proves the quality of the interface: consistency is more than skin deep and actually have little to do with how an application is skinned.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yeah, okay, Linux is a long way from perfect in that regard, but if it's going to be criticised for it's inconsistency, can we at least find something to compare it to that is consistent itself?
I agree - if you look at the GNOME applications, for example, the GUI consistancies are amazing; compared to the Windows worlds where there are a missmash of 100s of differences types of UI's - you have the Windows Media Player, Office 2007 etc.
The worse part is when you hear their excuse; I can put up with the differences, it is when you have the half assed excuses, "oh, its branding!", "we're trying to make out applications stand out" are the excuses used by Microsoft and Apple developers.
Sorry, I don't *need* that, give me a media player that is made up using standard widgets, I don't care about skinning, I don't care about 'standing out' - give me a good quality application, and I'll use it.
What happened to the good old days when companies used to compete based on making the 'better application' rather than creating crappy obscure interfaces which are pig ugly and do nothing to improve the usability of their application.
Member since:2006-07-01
'What happened to the good old days...'
- You yourself dumped them when you stopped using the command line and started using Gnome. Of course, you seem not to have noticed when it's your own 'religion'.
'creating crappy obscure interfaces which are pig ugly and do nothing to improve the usability of their application.'
- Funny, reading the comments that OsNews has from time to time, one could easily see this comment being made in regard of an article about Gnome.
Edited 2007-04-01 10:51
Member since:2006-01-10
I was thinking the same. No UI is more INconsistent than Windows. Every app has it's own flashy GUI, looking entirely different than the rest of the system - and even Microsofts apps itself don't follow the same guidelines. When I compare this to my Gnome desktop, where EVERYTHING except Skype looks the same, behaves the same - well ok on Linux, if you really want consistency you should stick with either Gnome or KDE, mixing apps breaks consistency, though it's still not as bad as on Windows.
Member since:
2005-07-23
So if Microsoft and Apple have these UI development guides, why is it that every release of itunes looks different to the rest of OSX? Office XP had it's own menus, then 2003 went all blue. And Windows Media Player always looked different - then when they invented a new flashy UI, they gave WMP11 a different one again!
Yeah, okay, Linux is a long way from perfect in that regard, but if it's going to be criticised for it's inconsistency, can we at least find something to compare it to that is consistent itself?