Other Software > Developer's Corner

Web Debate: Give Us Simplicity So We Can Ignore You

<< < (2/4) > >>

steeladept:
I am of the opinion that there is no need for it to be complex, but something like a CMS (from the OP) is relatively complex by nature if it is going to be useful.  At least it appears that way to my non-programmer mind.  The big problem I think many see is how can something so simple be so powerful?  Since I am in IT, I see it everyday, but not so much the average person.  They gripe and groan and bemoan every intrusive popup; but if they aren't there, they think it isn't working.  This lends itself to problem number 2, and that is valuing the software.  If they don't think it is working, they have a tough time justifying the price of the software.  Indeed, many people can't even place a value on their data in the first place, making many pieces of software "not worth it" to them even though it may well be.  Your backup software is a particularly good example of a type of software few people appreciate the value of.  Well, they do after a catastrophic failure, but until then...

Armando hit on another point.  Far too often, society deems more is better.  Therefore, more features at the same price automatically make a product better in many people's minds (I fight myself on this point far more than I like to admit).  Really it should be based on functionality, speed, flexibility, and/or elegance (for lack of a better term), but these are rarely tested, let alone judged.  I suppose part of the problem here is the marketing always shows a partial judgement in favor of the marketed product - there really is no consistent, reliable source for data.  Moreover, there is no separation of when one product shines over another in the same space.  These are pretty much left to the consumer.  Since that is the case, the bigger advertising budget and the better word of mouth marketers get the lion's share of the market regardless of quality of product (Symantec comes to mind here for me...).  My point is, it isn't necessarily the simplicity or the speed or whatever that makes it difficult - it is the marketing.  Most companies market on features and tweakability.   You just need to market on simplicity, speed, flexibility, and UI elegance - just like Apple does for the Mac.  (Since you mentioned it, I thought I would show you them as an example  :Thmbsup:)

Stoic Joker:
Armando hit on another point.  Far too often, society deems more is better. -steeladept (October 18, 2010, 03:32 PM)
--- End quote ---

Then they go out and buy an ultra high performance vehicle and get killed in (or on) it a week later (seen it happed too many times).

Therefore, more features at the same price automatically make a product better in many people's minds (I fight myself on this point far more than I like to admit). -steeladept (October 18, 2010, 03:32 PM)
--- End quote ---

You're spot on the vilify the marketing companies here - The right tool for the job does exactly what you need, and only what you need with out a bunch of attachments & adapters that get lost or just in the way.

Really it should be based on functionality, speed, flexibility, and/or elegance (for lack of a better term), but these are rarely tested, let alone judged.-steeladept (October 18, 2010, 03:32 PM)
--- End quote ---

There is no better term. And they should be mandatory as tests. Form Follows Function - I don't give a damn if it's shiny, does it work?!? There is true beauty in the design of a device that does a specific job well and with little effort. Ever try to do any serious work with a Swiss Army knife? Ha! Sure its got all sorts of widgets to do everything imaginable, but none of them are all that effective independently because they're so freaking tiny and the rest are all piled up in the way.

f0dder:
There is no better term. And they should be mandatory as tests. Form Follows Function - I don't give a damn if it's shiny, does it work?!?-Stoic Joker (October 18, 2010, 06:44 PM)
--- End quote ---
Function comes first, but form is still important - even considering functionally equivalent user interfaces (ie, the exact same types of widgets, menu items and toolbars), I'd prefer the "prettier" of two GUIs (as long as it didn't mean insanely higher system requirements, of course). I'm not talking about a lot of glitzy effects (even though a few touches can be "sexy"), but things like "Win9x" look (ugly bitmaps & icons, toolbars where items have button borders, et cetera) vs. prettier & cleaner XP (or even Vista+) looks. While I'm not a fan of Apple's oversimplification and the-user-must-be-a-moron attitude, I do think they get a lot of things right in their interface design :)

Stoic Joker:
f0dder... I didn't say form was irrelevant, I said it was secondary.

I saw a commercial for a luxury car last night (Lexus I think), and they were with great fan fair heralding it many adornments. One of which was that it had (Gasp...!) genuine silver dust embedded in a real wood dash. ...And I thought to myself, wow... Thats... Well ... Well it's F'ing Stupid really.

Yes Apple does have some interesting UI design ideas - whats under them is frequently poo IMO - But when setting up an RDP connection on a clients iPad I was genuinely impressed with how smoothly it worked. Even when connecting on a nonstandard port.

It's the style over substance crap that makes me cringe.

Armando:
Discussing form vs function in broad terms is like discussing brain vs intelligence. "Intelligence comes first, but brain is still important". Yes, sure.

There would be no form without function... and the reverse. Really, it's not that one is important, and that the other is err.....also important. They're both essential and absolutely inseparable. And since there's no universally accepted model to evaluate great function or form in general (both are subject to the individual's preferences and psychology, the various world cultures, etc.), the targeted users/receivers, etc. should be the main perspective conditioning both.

I.e :  Put more weight on one, less on the other if you want, but in the end it's either just a matter of personal preference, users preferences, culture, historical context, live/die, flunk/pass the test, etc.

You could try building something that tries to be "all form", but it'll still have the function to show something that's "all form" (and it'll be some kind of performative contradiction  :-[, as described by J. Habermas). Same for the reverse, of course.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page