Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Jun 2007 13:44 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Federkiel writes: "People working with Apple computers are used to a very consistent user experience. For a large part this stems from the fact that the Lisa type of GUI does not have the fight between MDI and SDI. The question simply never arises, because the Lisa type of GUI does not offer the choice to create either of both; it's something different all along. I usually think of it as 'MDI on steroids unified with a window manager'. It virtually includes all benefits of a SDI and and the benefits of an MDI." Read on for how I feel about this age-old discussion.
Thread beginning with comment 250450
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by rshol on Mon 25th Jun 2007 18:33 UTC
Member since:

Is the hobgoblin of little minds. What I want is for the UI to work and look how I want it work, not how someone else thinks it ought to work and look.

Why should a UI expect everyone to work the same way?

I think UI's are over thought, like food sometime. I ate at a restaurant where they served caviar with little spoons that had mother of pearl bowls. It was said that silver reacted with the acidity in the caviar to produce a less than pleasant taste. Was this refined? Oh my yes. But it was entirely too precious, refined past the point of meaning and sense.

That's happening in UI's. When they get so refined they can't change because they've become "works of art", touching anything causes cascading problems through the entire system. Then they stagnate and die because nobody is willing to change anything for fear of offending the cognoscenti and they become less and less relevant. What we need are robust UI's not refined/artistic UI's.

Reply Score: 2