in

ASP.NET Weblogs

Philip Rieck

Phil in .net

Are consistent user interfaces a thing of the past?

Many people have seen the new Avalon UI paradigm, and the ease with which one can "skin" an Avalon app. Many of those people are concerned (rightly, I think) that this means that every app out there will depart completely from UI standards that we all know. Lately, I've been asking myself - is that a bad thing, or a good thing?

You can ask anyone who knows me (if you can find anyone to admit it); I have some strong feelings on UI design and consistency. I've gone to the mall management office when a pull door had a horizontal push-style bar to complain0. I hate analog watches (I mentally translate the position to numbers anyway - why not show me the numbers?), and I've quit using applications that annoy me because they depart from windows standard UI behavior in ways that make it hard to use the application ( a push button is not a drop down menu! - I'll live with the little down arrow part, but the whole button?).

Now, seeing what Avalon is capable of and what it makes easy, I wonder - is non-uniformity1 a blessing in disguise? Let's examine why consistency is good:

  1. A user interface that conforms to the expected UI guidelines lets a user spend less time thinking about how to interact with your application, and spend more time thinking about what they want to do with your application.

That's pretty much what it all boils down to. It keeps the user from having to think about the how, giving them more brain to focus on the what.

Can we accomplish this goal another way? With a great design, couldn't we use the freedom that Avalon may give us to make our interface functionality intuitive? I think we can. Why would I want my spreadsheet to have the same UI as my contact management software? They do different things - why present them the same way?

My toaster is intuitive. It performs a simple function and has a simple interface. My microwave oven is intuitive for simple timed cooking2 - press the time, hit start - but it has a completely different UI than my toaster. They perform different tasks, but accomplish similar things (heating of food), and I use them both equally well (even though I only use my toaster once a month). Is it really wrong to start writing applications this way?

I'm not yet convinced that we should start removing consistency guidlines. But I think back to the demo app given during the keynote at the PDC (the legal case management application), and see that it can work. It can work very, very well with a UI designed from the ground up for the task at hand. I can't wait to see the future. Perhaps Longhorn Evangelists can post some demo apps (like this one) for us to see and believe - I know I'd like to see what the designers of Avalon think are possible.

The other thing I can see is this : if you're wondering what career path to take for the future, designer will be a good one.

 

0 Perhaps it was because I think mall UI should be consistent. Perhaps it was because I ran into the door and had to abate my embarrasment by blaming others. I'm going to say it was the former. 1 Okay, so maybe non-uniformity is not a word. I like it, and I'm using it.
2 For programmed multi-step cooking it's not so easy. And it still can't fix the main problem I have - failing to read directions on frozen foods.

Published Nov 03 2003, 08:44 AM by philipr
Filed under: , ,

Comments

 

Todd Moon said:

I'm a libertarian and I believe strongly in a lack of "forced" conformity. Skins are a great idea. They put the power of UI design in the developers hands. Now, obviously, it is in the developers best interest to please the client. Therefore a wise developer will design a UI that is consistent with the users expectations.... whatever those are.

Given some time, the developer community as a whole will develop a defacto standard UI design to which many developers will conform simply because users will come to expect that design. Why leave it to MS to create this standard? We should leave it to the development community to figure out the best UI and allow it to eveolve over time.

Of course, there will always be those who fly in the face of convention and design horrible (er, just unexpected) interfaces. Like the "old new" Quicktime with the round volume control. But they will either suffer for their bad design, or conform. Heck, even Apple chose to conform in the end.
November 3, 2003 10:09 AM
 

Darrell said:

All IMHO:

Skinning just allows a user to put what they consider to be a friendly face on the application. Since people associate the pleasant experience from their preferred colors on the skin with your app, this is a good thing.

However, skinning will not (should not?) change how the functionality works. For example, one skin would not use a round volume knob and another the slider volume control. You can't "skin" usability.
November 3, 2003 12:08 PM
 

Pete said:

Toasters and microwaves use different widgets (controls) and that's fine in a GUI. But I (and I think most people) would prefer to have a toaster that matches my microwave (in styling and/or colour), not to mention my cooker, fridge, freezer, washing machine, etc. The best kitchens have consistency.

Things like look & feel should be almost entirely in the hands of the user (and consistent across the system). This is because different people have different requirements and tastes.
November 3, 2003 12:31 PM
 

Dave said:

Okay, so MS spent several millions and millions, plus many man-years (or woman-years) doing usability tests and you all are simply willing to throw that out the window? Wow.

Talk to me about the rip-roaring success of Corell Office. About how the subtle differences between Lotus and WordPerfect just bowled the market over and simply overtook the market over MS Office. (Ever really consider why MS Office so easily moved into the forefront?)

Here's what the power of skinning really means: USER customizing, not DEVELOPER. Always think like a marketing person. Give the user the exact same UI they've come to learn and love. Then give them an easy way to make their OWN skin. Now there's something to set your software apart.

Consider WMP (Windows Media Player). Does MS still allow you the 'classic' look? Do you think they will ever get rid of it? Hell no. But they WILL continue to give you more and more skins for you to choose from. They just don't ram it down your throat.

IMHO you can always tell newbies in the developer role. They drool all over new technology with no regard for what it costs their users in terms of hardware. And they do the same with trying to re-invent the wheel with their UIs. Do I mean that MS has the ultimate UI? No... but you better believe they've spent millions to make it the best they can, and it'll cost you (relatively speaking) just as much to invent something that is a significant improvement over it.
November 3, 2003 2:17 PM
 

Philip Rieck said:

Todd:
Good points - consistency by consensus is a great idea. I think that people have bowed to MS standards simply because they've put the most resources into usability testing on windows.

Darrell:
Perhaps "skin" was a bad word to use - I mean as far as the developer goes (dev's choise on round vs. slider). During the keynote, a case item was shown as a blob connected to other supporting blobs. No UI standards call for floating, moving, connected and clickable blobs.

Pete: While I agree somewhat that it should be in the users hands, the problem with that is when look & feel can completely change usability. If as a designer I can come up with a great look and feel that's usable but not consistent, should I use it? Should I allow a user to ruin usability on my app (and perhaps they quit using it, or loose word-of mouth demo sales) by skinning it?
November 3, 2003 2:32 PM
 

Carl Franklin said:

Great stuff. I would add, though, that you really can't compare modern business software to a toaster. A toaster does one thing. Here is a perfect toaster UI:

http://www.franklins.net/toaster.gif

Carl
November 3, 2003 4:07 PM
 

Philip Rieck said:

No, you can't really compare to a toaster.... except - My toaster allows options (toast darkness). Like a batch reporting software here at this client site - it assumes data is available (bread) where it always expects it (the slot, not configurable) and produces a report (toast) based on one option (darkness).

In any case, you're right the analogy is weak - most current monolithic software is much more complex than any appliance. Perhaps a passenger jet is a better fit for the sheer number of options / operations / situations that most deal with. And yes, consistency in design for those is quite important. That takes me to a planned future post about the dangers of analogies in software.
November 3, 2003 4:37 PM
 

Pete said:

"the problem with that is when look & feel can completely change usability"

Usability is one thing I think *should* be left to the developer. I meant skinning as in changing colours/backgrounds/bitmaps.

Dave:
"so MS spent several millions and millions, plus many man-years (or woman-years) doing usability tests and you all are simply willing to throw that out the window?"

What I'm talking about is a system similar to the one windows xp introduced. The problem is not the usability studies.. it's the implementation. Just look at any XP app (including explorer and office) -- you will undoubtedly see controls that are not in the XP style. The scrollbars in office xp, that little sash thingy above the vertical scrollbar in office 2003, the summary tab page of explorer's properties dialog and the (in)famous office xp/2003 menus/toolbars (2003: *shudder*).

From my point of view there are two things that any application GUI should have -- it should be consistent with all other apps, and it should be intuitive and easy to get started with (which comes partly from being consistent anyway).

As a final point -- toolbars are meant to allow faster access to key actions than menus. Ever tried to use someone else's copy of Word only to find their toolbars are different from yours? It takes longer to find the right button than using the menu would.
November 4, 2003 9:15 AM
 

Jeff Key said:

Funny: I, too, was worried -- until today. I was afraid we would be hit with horrible UIs and the world would basically end. Then I realized, as someone else has already mentioned, that people hell-bent on non-conforming UIs have been doing this forever. Look at almost any store-bought application. All look different and don't really conform to anything, although most go with a "web-like" model. As someone mentioned, look at Office. Or VS.NET, or any other app.

I think the situation will not change one bit. Microsoft will give the controls a nice, consistent default look that those of us that like consistency will not modify, while others continue to wreak havoc. Nothing changes.
November 6, 2003 11:35 PM
 

Jeff Key said:

Forgot to mention corporate apps. They aren't exactly consistent either. It's a rare day that you see a nicely-designed Windows app on a corporate desktop. At least a good number of corp web apps have designer input. Maybe they'll play a role in more web-like Avalon apps.
November 6, 2003 11:39 PM
 

Philip Rieck said:

Rare -- that means you've seen one! Where!

Kidding aside, you hit it on. Despite my enthusiasm for "breaking out of the box", I dread what corp apps will look like once XAML hits the streets. The same guys building one-off Access applications under the radar now, will be sending ClickOnce deployments of god only knows what to all users with glee.
November 6, 2003 11:42 PM

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Add
Terms of Use