Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Feb 2011 23:29 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless The man, the legend: a main developer of the BeOS. Did the App Server, Interface Kit, Application Kit. These days, Benoit Schillings does something else entirely: he's currently the chief technology officer at Myriad, where he and his team is working on Alien Dalvik. Now that I know he's the one leading this team, I know for sure we've got something special here.
Thread beginning with comment 463366
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by Nelson on Sun 20th Feb 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
Member since:

"They maintain the Android look and feel, and throwing users who are accustomed to one experience, into another one, for the sake of application compatibility to me, is a waste.

Oh My God, this is so disturbing! The big rounded boxes does not have the same color! Everybody is so lost!

Seriously, who gives a damn? You already can't see the difference between a maemo and an android app (just look at the deezer app).

The way an end user expects to interact with an app is the way it's been interacting with the system as a whole. If an experience is different (not just visually, you cant sit here and tell me that Android and Maemo/MeeGo/whatever will all share consistent behavior with Android's look and feel) then the customer will be legitimately thrown off. This is UX 101. It's the whole point behind standard controls.

But you know what, you can be dismissive and you can oversimplify it if you want. However you, and engineers who think like you, are the reasons why the platform will never be a viable third way and will always remain a science project. It's like its amateur hour.

You people put principals above experience, to the point of absurdity, and you're producing a genuine, free software, open, .... piece of shit.

There is nothing wrong with code sharing or code reuse across platforms. That's fine, but the front end UI should be platform specific.

Edited 2011-02-20 16:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by WereCatf on Sun 20th Feb 2011 19:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
WereCatf Member since:

You people put principals above experience, to the point of absurdity, and you're producing a genuine, free software, open, .... piece of shit.

You know, more-or-less all modern platforms suffer from the fact that their applications have wildy differing looks and feel. Just take a sampling of Windows apps. Or OSX apps. Or even Android apps. And so on. Hell, even Microsoft themselves have trouble with keeping looks and feels consistent across their own software.

It still hasn't stopped people from using those applications. In fact there's applications that are extremely popular despite having looks and feels totally and wholly different from anything else!

The fact is that basic UI elements still work the same: tapping/clicking a button works the same on Android, OSX, Maemo and Windows, scrolling up or down works almost identically across all the platforms, and so on. Having slightly differing looks and feel is a hindrance, yes, but it's almost never completely blocks one from using the application in question.

Besides, trying to insinuate that only open-source software has consistency-issues is not only ignorant, it's downright stupidity.

Edited 2011-02-20 19:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 21st Feb 2011 00:00 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

[qThis is UX 101. [/q]

Didn't stop the iPhone. If you want an inconsistent mess, look no further than iOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by lucas_maximus on Mon 21st Feb 2011 00:35 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
lucas_maximus Member since:

Well said.

A lot of commenters on here put ideals over pragmatics to the point of obsurdity.

The general "polish" on a software product that makes the difference between something which is adequate to something that is fantastic.

For example on my HTC desire, the volume buttons is exactly where my thumb would be if I am talking on the phone, so I can adjust the volume accordingly.

I also have a nokia 1661 which I use as my backup phone ... which I had to use this weekend since I left my android charger on my office desk ... another nicely designed phone which is solid ...

Double tapping "up" on the phone turns the small torch on, which is kinda intuitive since the the torch is above the screen. Tapping "down" on the phone brings up the phone book which is where the phone's keypad is ... this is a £20 phone, and nokia has made the effort to put this in ... on one of their lowest end phones.

These "nice little touches" that make the difference between good and great and many devs and geeks have an attitude "of you don't really need that" ... Consumers notice these little differences over time and it can either tarnish a companies name or make it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Radio
by Radio on Mon 21st Feb 2011 12:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Radio"
Radio Member since:

You people put principals above experience, to the point of absurdity, and you're producing a genuine, free software, open, .... piece of shit.
And experience proves that consistency is an over-hyped concept, usually championed by Apple and thrown by Apple fanboys at the ugly, unsuccessful Windows and Linux (as you are doing again - which is funny, as linux desktops are very consistent, at the expense of some other more important IMHO design details), who just happen to have turned their coats, by the way:

But maybe you'd rather read a report from a usability expert on this awesome iOS that crushes the competition thanks to the consistency of its interface (and not just hype):

once they do figure out how something works, users can't transfer their skills from one app to the next. Each application has a completely different UI for similar features.

In different apps, touching a picture could produce any of the following 5 results:

* Nothing happens
* Enlarging the picture
* Hyperlinking to a more detailed page about that item
* Flipping the image to reveal additional pictures in the same place (metaphorically, these new pictures are "on the back side" of the original picture)
* Popping up a set of navigation choices

Say what again?

Edited 2011-02-21 12:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4