Linked by vermaden on Wed 21st May 2008 19:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 315252
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-21
I like some of what the author pointed out, but it's pretty obvious that he is NOT a graphics UI person, but someone who thinks logically. Unfortunately, my experience is that the two sometimes don't mix very well.
I too am more technical, so I prefer things that "make sense", which I think is what the author is attempting to say.
But if you look at the "good", "award winning" UI's out there, a lot of them do NOT make sense and suffer from the "wasted space" issues brought out in the article.
Shoot, all you have to do is visit one of those award winning websites with a large (possibly wide screen) monitor, and when you see the fixed width the page centered (very small) on your huge screen, you wish that people did things that "make sense" rather than what supposedly "looks good".
Anyhow... some good points.... and I think that some applications might change, but the UI award winners will go to the apps that make use of "wasted space" to make things pretty.