Comments on: User Interfaces Are Like Robots

By: George Bailey

George Bailey — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:16:46 +0000

@Sebhelyesfarku

Nobody claims the OS X interface is Nirvana. Just less crappy. And there are parts that are not as good as OS 9.

By: Sebhelyesfarku

Sebhelyesfarku — Thu, 31 May 2007 08:38:04 +0000

The Mac “usability/interface” stuff is overhyped. Maczealots are simply brainwashed to think that using a Mac is the Nirvana, and they are like Jehowah’s Wittnesses to defend their religion. Recently I bumped into a moron who defended the 3 or 4 different window styles of OS X (unified, brushed metal, dark grey, even darker grey, whatever), saying that he doesn’t know why, but there must be some higher level, secret reason which we can’t understand, average human beings LOL. I always have fun with these Mactards!

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm

TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm — Sat, 26 May 2007 21:13:03 +0000

Two finger click? And I’ve been fooled by the design of the mighty mouse, never guessed it was two sensors. I guess it may help me to RTFM once in a while, then

By: Elliotte Rusty Harold

Elliotte Rusty Harold — Sat, 26 May 2007 12:12:03 +0000

I haven’t bought a Mac with a bundled mouse for a few years now, but the latest Apple mouse I bought has a right mouse button. I also notice according to the Apple store that, ” Apple offers a standard wired Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse with all iMac models.” Mac Pros also include Mighy Mice. The MacBook trackpads use two finger click as a right mouse button.

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm

TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm — Sat, 26 May 2007 07:18:53 +0000

I may be wrong, but I’ll call “bullshit” on “Macs have had right mouse buttons for a couple of years now”. Neither my Mac nor anyone’s I know was delivered with anything but a one-button mouse. I have purchased a separate mouse with two buttons and scrollwheel, though, but that doesn’t really count.

But, yes, it does boil down to lack of usability design.

By: Elliotte Rusty Harold

Elliotte Rusty Harold — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:59:30 +0000

Macs have had right mouse buttons for a couple of years now, and right mouse clicks for longer than that. On single button mice, they’re emulated with Ctrl-click.

However, good Mac-native apps don’t put anything on the right-click context menu that can’t be accessed some other way without right clicking. Well designed Windows and Unix apps don’t either because many non-programmer end users don’t ever think to look there. However because Windows does have right mouse buttons, the need to avoid forcing users to right click isn’t as well-known among Windows developers.

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm

TorbjÃ¶rn Gannholm — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:54:11 +0000

I really think Bill has a point, but my conclusion is somewhat different. I read it as if you try to make a native GUI you better go all the way, otherwise you get stuck in the uncanny valley and your user will be ill at ease all the time. But if you make it different enough from the native you are actually quite safe. After a first surprise and possibly some awkwardness things will go fine.

I think the problem with most Java apps on the Mac is really the almost complete absence of any sort of usability design. With Windows users and Unix users you can get away with that because they’re not used to having it, but with Mac users you can’t. Mac users expect to just be able to use an app without spending a day to RTFM. Eclipse is a perfect case in point. A while ago, I decided to give Eclipse and Netbeans 5 minutes each on a pre-existing project from the point of view of an IntelliJ user (all on Windows, mind you, where Eclipse is supposed to be a poster child). With Eclipse I didn’t get anywhere (and got insulted for being a moron that couldn’t read). With Netbeans I got almost all the way (and got thanks for pointing out some points of improvement). With IntelliJ everything just works, I have never gotten stumped.

One special point worth noting for the Mac: “Right mouse click? Say, what?” So there is more to native “feel” than a toolkit can accomplish. Or maybe not, Swing could actually be made to handle context-sensitive menus on the Mac by “click on the object to change the main menu bar” instead of by “right mouse click”. We just have to introduce the high-level concept of ContextSensitiveMenu instead of the low-level listener action.

By: Viswanath

Viswanath — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:14:08 +0000

I somehow don’t fully agree with the idea of UIs being Robots. I would put it as UIs are expected to be more consistent, than less.

Consider the case of ‘ribbon’ menus in newer version of Office. This is a new stuff, in-consistent with the rest of the Windows Apps that we use. It was the same with ‘expandable’ menus that came with an earlier version of Office. I’d like to go back in time and say that the ‘File Open’ dialog changed between every version of windows, well most, and still is not consistent. Checkout the Install Font control panel applet.

I’d think that UI being inconsistent, because of bugs, should be treated different, when compared to a new UI method being introduced. Both of them look inconsistent to start with, one settles (gets fixed) down in time, we adapt to the other.

There may be failed ideas, such as Active desktop. But i’d think of it as an idea that failed.

By: Augusto

Augusto — Mon, 21 May 2007 23:17:19 +0000

Ironically, if you run Azuerus on Swing the disabled icons look like a normal desktop app.
http://jroller.com/page/dk?entry=azureus_on_swing

By: WilliamChen

WilliamChen — Mon, 21 May 2007 07:32:58 +0000

Hey, guys, I don’t agree with his Uncanny Valley theory. This is a completely wrong anology to user interface designing.
Back to Uncanny Valley theory, why do we feel odd to an almost-but-not-quite-human robot? Because we know beforehand this object is a robot, not a human, although it is very much like a human. Therefore, no matter how closely it looks like a human, you will feel more and more uneasy with it. This is a sychological phenomenon. I believe if somebody leads a real human in front of you and tell you he is a robot, you will also feel more and more uneasy with this guy. No matter how much he looks like a normal human and he in fact IS a human.
For the same reason, if a swing application is running using Windows Look And Feel using java 6, and if you tell the end users that the application is developed with C++ on MFC, or simply donâ€™t tell him anything about your technology, he is surely not aware it is swing application.
Most of the end users donâ€™t know what is Swing application and what is SWT application. They simply uses these application. Only java developers are aware of this distinction. Even with java developers, if you dontâ€™ tell him it is a Swing application, he is probably not aware the so-called â€œUncanny Valleyâ€ in it.
In another direction, arenâ€™t native widegts emulated? Of course they are drawn in C/C++ or ASM. But they are not â€œnativeâ€ as you think.
In a word, human beings are very likely to be influenced by the beforehand message, no matter it is in fact inaccurate.
(I am not a native English speaker, so forgive me for my writing.)