Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Nov 2009 20:40 UTC
Windows Okay, so this is new. When it comes to graphical user interfaces, everyone is copying everyone, but you'll always find supporters of platform Abc claiming platform Xyz is stealing from them - and vice versa. Mac supporters have often stated that Vista and Windows 7 were copying from Apple, and according to Microsoft's partner group manager, Simon Aldous, this is true. Wait, what?
Thread beginning with comment 394133
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
haus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The ability to configure an interface unconditionally may benefit yourself but does a massive disservice for a platform as a whole and the ultimate usability of it.

Consistency in UIs is far more important than configurability.

Configurability is only important when the interface is poor from the beginning which I suppose is why this level of adaptation is regarded so highly within the Linux community.

If an interface addresses the needs of most people, the interface out to limit the default options at UI configuration.

It explains why Linux is at one end of the spectrum and OS X is at the other.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It explains why Linux is at one end of the spectrum and OS X is at the other.


Don't generalise. GNOME is far more consistent than Mac OS X, where even Apple's own applications sport wildly different UI designs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

The ability to configure an interface unconditionally may benefit yourself but does a massive disservice for a platform as a whole and the ultimate usability of it.


I digress. A consistent UI with options to further configure it is better. That's the KDE way.

Consistency in UIs is far more important than configurability.


There is no consistency in Windows world. All applications look slightly different according to the toolkit they use. I still find ridiculous how lots of Microsoft provided applications have a white square as popup menu without icons or really badly designed ones. Looks so '80s.

Configurability is only important when the interface is poor from the beginning which I suppose is why this level of adaptation is regarded so highly within the Linux community.


Sometimes I need a simple UI. Sometimes I need to do something a different way and I need the extra configuration. As long as the extra configuration is available for anyone to use and doesn't disturb Joe User, why is it so wrong to offer customizability?

If an interface addresses the needs of most people, the interface out to limit the default options at UI configuration.


There are different models of clothes, cars, houses, monitors, mouses, shoes, to fit different tastes. What makes you think there is "The One UI To Rules Them All"?

It explains why Linux is at one end of the spectrum and OS X is at the other.


It has nothing to do with configuration. It has everything to do with coherency in the toolkits provided. Apple only provides one. Linux has many toolkits, many desktops, many distros...

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I digress.

Yes.

Reply Parent Score: 3

KrimZon Member since:
2009-06-24

The first thing I have to do every time I try OSX is install a third party tool to disable mouse acceleration.

If configurability is only important when the interface is poor then I've successfully fixed GNOME while OSX remains permanently broken to some extent.

But the truth is an interface can be configurable and consistent at the same time - having the same set of components and having it obvious what those components are and having them behave the same regardless of how they're arranged.

Reply Parent Score: 1