author=jgpaiva link=topic=28892.msg269565#msg269565 date=1322573716]
IMO you are seriously undervaluing how important the user interface is. Apple has repeatedly shown how important the look and feel of stuff (software and hardware) is for people.
Not at all. Interface design is an obsession of mine. Something I've put a huge amount of personal research and study into. (Having a GF with a graduate degree in cognitive psych as a resource doesn't hurt either.
)
What I'm saying is not to let yourself get too distracted by one company's approach to interface design such that it blinds you to doing something better or more intelligent.
It also pays to remember that Microsoft has long been thrashing around to come up with a look to rival Apple's. So the ribbon design is far more motivated by marketing decisions than it ever was for productivity concerns.
Regarding Microsoft's study, I've seen the video you mentioned and read all the write-ups. I'm not impressed. It started with a bias in favor of the need for a completely new interface and went from there. Hardly good science.
There was also an article that somebody (not Microsoft) did about a year later where they took the classic menus and 'fixed' them to remove many of the complaints and inconsistencies. IIRC the people they tested it on were even more productive than they were with the ribbon despite the fact this study used the same methodology and criteria Microsoft used to justify their new interface. Go figure.
I think what emerges is that Microsoft, on its own, decided a completely new interface was needed and went about creating one. What they came up with might be arguably "better." But only as long as you ignore data that contradicts the notion the ribbon is vastly superior and preferable to any other alternative.
Anytime I see a publicly realeased "study" or white paper coming out of a corporation's R&D department I have to remind myself it's being released to support a decision already made. Because all the really breakthrough stuff sure as hell sports a "Company Private" stamp - and is likely locked up at night!
And Microsoft is not above fudging a study or twisting results to support their contentions and inject some FUD into the discussion. They've done it before. They'll do it again if they think they have to.
So have many other businesses and those with vested interests.
I'm not going to get in a roll about Apple. Suffice to say Apple is not so much about design or technical excellence (both are a given if you want to survive in this business and Apple holds no monopoly there) as it is about "belonging" and boosting your self-esteem by owning and using an Apple product.
If you look beyond the hype and really look at Apple's "insanely great" designs you'll find equal amounts of brilliance and just plain wrong thinking. Apple isn't as smart as they think they are. Their real talent is not being afraid to introduce something, have it do an epic fail, then go out and do it again. I've been with them since the Macintosh SE running System 6.0.4 and Finder so I've got a lot to base my opinion on.
Having a loving, blindly forgiving, and monied userbase let's them get away with it. But what the heck. It's a cult so who cares?
-------
Note: I regularly use Windows, OSX, various flavors of Linux, and BSD. I use just about every major interface from the command line - all the way up to that latest "disaster waiting to happen" called Gnome3 - with stops in between for Aero, Apple, and annoyance. And I'm writing this post on my iPhone! (Not recommended btw.) I mention this only to show I have no strong personal biases for any interface as long as it works enough to let me get something done with it.
Recent Posts
