Coding for business applications
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
Well, personally, I think the most important thing when it comes to an interface isn't necessarily the look, but rather how user-friendly the software is. If a new look makes it easier for the user to get to where he/she wants to go, then it's a big deal.
I voted the third option, though, as i think that captures this statement well enough.
I voted the third option, though, as i think that captures this statement well enough.
I vote "No, spend the money on better functionality instead", but felt the same as you did.Chalnoth said:
One thing about the look, though. It shouldn't "look good," it should look like it belongs. If you want to deploy a piece of software that is, say, a database interface for a billing department, it should look like it is professional, reliable, and secure. If you're attempting to sell already-written software to new customers, having it look like it belongs in the position may well be more important than it having the best functionality.
I still say functionality is more important, of course, but a good UI will put those aspects of the functionality that your customer deems most important right in the user's face, just so that it looks like it fits the role better.
I still say functionality is more important, of course, but a good UI will put those aspects of the functionality that your customer deems most important right in the user's face, just so that it looks like it fits the role better.
Nom De Guerre
Banned
DiGuru seems to be making some kind of software for the public based on the recent threads he'd started here.
Anyway, I think it depends on what the software is. I mean, if you're talking about music players, for instance, then yes, I'd say "the look" plays a significant part, not only because the user likes looking at it himself but also to show off to friends ("Hey look, I've got this great software... LOOK at it!").
However since this is probably related to programming software (there's a reason why DiGuru posted this thread here, right?), well, IMO programmers probably have no qualms about looking at square interfaces with one-tone color borders. To encourage them to even look at them to start with, the functionality must be there and most definitely be easily found and understood. Results-oriented folks probably don't really care too much about looks as long as they get what they want easily and quickly IMO.
It'll probably depend on your target market for your particular product.
Anyway, I think it depends on what the software is. I mean, if you're talking about music players, for instance, then yes, I'd say "the look" plays a significant part, not only because the user likes looking at it himself but also to show off to friends ("Hey look, I've got this great software... LOOK at it!").
However since this is probably related to programming software (there's a reason why DiGuru posted this thread here, right?), well, IMO programmers probably have no qualms about looking at square interfaces with one-tone color borders. To encourage them to even look at them to start with, the functionality must be there and most definitely be easily found and understood. Results-oriented folks probably don't really care too much about looks as long as they get what they want easily and quickly IMO.
It'll probably depend on your target market for your particular product.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do all kinds of things: helpdesk, network administration and troubleshooting, consultancy, programming, design, project lead, writing management pieces and contracts, whatever. But my main job is designing and building custom software and general IT solutions.Nom De Guerre said:
Yes, but some of our most succesful software just looked really great, but was really buggy. And the customers didn't mind paying more and more for such a superbly-looking application. To fix the bugs, and make it useful. But that's not how they see things.
Mind you, I would never deliver buggy software if I can help it, but it makes me ponder the general wisdom.
But I do! I'm pretty fed up with producing that kind of stuff! Sure, it works very well, but it looks extremely bland and boring. So nineties!
So, I started making much better looking ones, demo's and in-house projects. And while the users and potential clients really dig that, and all say that's how it should be done, most of my co-workers and my direct manager think it's just a waste of time and money. "The customer doesn't care, and doesn't want to pay for all that." So my official projects have to be grey, square and bland.
Absolutely. And if it looks and functions nice, sleek and smooth, it increases the pleasure of working with it. And makes the customer more agreeable to fork over the money for it.
Most of the time, the looks of it are the main distinction before you've used it for a fair bit. Looks sell.
Advertising. "Remember that great-looking program? Let's ask them to make the new one." Most decision makers only see and never use what they order.
I have just answered "Other". I do agree with Alan Cooper's remarks on software design in general, and on the importance of interactions.
In short, in case you would not have yet heard of interaction desing: we humans can cope well with two types of things: static things (rocks, grass,...) and moving living things (humans and other animals - ahem, well, we do more or less well with them). Software is a totaly different kind, only software geeks do well with it, and they aren't very representative of the whole human kind. Hence designing how software interacts with human being is indeed important and can make a world of difference to the users. (For more details, you can see here).
The look and the look-and-feel should be consequences of an interaction design.
In short, in case you would not have yet heard of interaction desing: we humans can cope well with two types of things: static things (rocks, grass,...) and moving living things (humans and other animals - ahem, well, we do more or less well with them). Software is a totaly different kind, only software geeks do well with it, and they aren't very representative of the whole human kind. Hence designing how software interacts with human being is indeed important and can make a world of difference to the users. (For more details, you can see here).
The look and the look-and-feel should be consequences of an interaction design.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chalnoth said:
Seconded. But having said that, it still amazes me how strong looks affect people's opinion sometimes. Most of the professionals I work with recognise the importance of functionality above all else, but there's still a big number who really like the look of my same .NET application more under Windows XP (where I've let it blend in nicely). Including myself, incidentally.
At the same time there are also a number of people who immediately disable the new XP desktop looks in favor of the 2000 one for their desktops.
Consistency, in that respect, is also essential. But ideally, a good looking user interface also enhances functionality.
I did some custom software work. One was for a really high-end spa, basically hammer out a simple CRM that mimes their paper workflow. It worked well, but it HAD to look good, simple because the customer might see.
Then again, I've had to roll out other apps which were butt ugly, but no one cared.
Then again, I've had to roll out other apps which were butt ugly, but no one cared.
A program's interface is one of its absolute key parts, especially depending on what type of users are going to be using it.
A UI should give easy access to features and make them easy to use. This is the key part. If a UI is already perfect at this then there's little reason to redesign it to make it look better.
But, better looks (good color scheme, nice button layout, etc) go a LONG way in making a user more comfortable, and not get tired (yes, literally tired) while working with it.
A UI should give easy access to features and make them easy to use. This is the key part. If a UI is already perfect at this then there's little reason to redesign it to make it look better.
But, better looks (good color scheme, nice button layout, etc) go a LONG way in making a user more comfortable, and not get tired (yes, literally tired) while working with it.
Let me throw out a random interface-related question. If you're familiar with either (or both), do you think Emacs or vi has a good interface? Why or why not? (This is related to the topic at hand, but I want to see the replies first)
Well, VI has a practically non-existant interface. Emacs is a bit better, and more intuitive, but still isn't nearly as good in its interface as most other text editors.The Baron said:
Both editors have tons of hidden commands and shortcut keys that are nearly impossible for anybody to find out on their own. Emacs at least has a reasonably-intuitive menu system, but its menus fall far short of the available functionality.
The saving grace for Emacs is mostly the syntax highlighting and indentation that it provides for coding. It, and VI, are both really powerful in their functionality. But their user interfaces are pretty horrible.
Blazkowicz
Legend
my opinion (as a mere end user of stuff) is, use standard controls (the boring OK/cancel and other buttons, checkboxes, menus, etc.), I mean, things well understood with good and simple layouts.
I hate things such a crap antivirus or other interface with everything made of custom widgets, or weird and totally ass preferences UI.
And, I came across this a few weeks ago : Interface Hall of Shame
http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/shame.htm
While old (1996-2000) I found it interesting. look at tabbed dialogs section to see great usability horrors.
a lot of the stuff is so laughable you wonder if it was done or purpose, or if they are the fruit of sadistic programmers
.
a great entry :
I hate things such a crap antivirus or other interface with everything made of custom widgets, or weird and totally ass preferences UI.
And, I came across this a few weeks ago : Interface Hall of Shame
http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/shame.htm
While old (1996-2000) I found it interesting. look at tabbed dialogs section to see great usability horrors.
a lot of the stuff is so laughable you wonder if it was done or purpose, or if they are the fruit of sadistic programmers
.a great entry :
i replied "functionality first", but I do think that looks can make or break a product. Ultimately, it all comes down to your end-user (though there are limits as to how awful an interface should be, even for extremely geeky users - coders and tweakers don't mind the command line interface, but in a way it wins points for cleanliness). I think that even in the corporate world, if your users are likely to be less than savvy about programming, a solid graphical front, looking well-organized, using an attractive font, and careful color choices can make using the app more fun and even improve functionality -- you can shade (or color!) in appropriately-filled database fields, for example, and highglight most-frequently-correct options, and provide graphical tips as to how a given option setting will affect future usage. Design can always add functionality, and I think the less technical your user is on the subject, the more you should design to his/her needs. Conversely, of course (and as several have said), if your user is highly skilled, then, stay out of their way, and only include design touches that keep the interface clean, organized, and FAST. Over the years, demo coders have really gone a great way, IMO, toward showing us all how unique window and dialog designs can be attractive, clean, organized, and FAST. In general, they use less junk like window animations, and more basic attractiveness and hints. For example, a little bit of static, low-color art can spruce up a dialog -- whereas a fancy-colored transition animation can just run like crap on some systems and get buggy. Good luck with your workmates, DiG, you always seem smart enough to know when enough is enough, and I'll wager you're right -- that a little attention to detail would improve your company's reputation.
And last, but certainly not least: why do most people think Linux is not for everyone? Because the big distributions take more time or work to install? Or because most commercial software for it is hard to install?
No. It is on par with Windows in all those respects, some are a bit better and some are a bit worse.
So, what is the problem? Lack of software? Games, yes, but that's about it. No, it's because everyone has learned to live with all the odds and quirks of Windows and Office, and so it's simply a learning experience. "Where the hell did they hide that? Where is my button?"
Then again, that's exactly what Windows and Office do with each new version. It's all they can do to make a different product, as functionally the changes are very small.
If you want a great upgrade for Office 2000/XP/2003, forget about Office 2007! And don't mention Windows Vista either. Just go for OpenOffice 2.0. It works exactly as you expect it to, and it fixed the bugs that aren't in the pretty awful Office 2000/XP user interface, as they copied that exactly (including the bad stuff) for about 99%.
Then again, a new Windows or Office that offers weeks of playtime is irresistible for your average office worker. Which makes the whole Linux debate moot, when upgrading to a new Microsoft product.
Recap: The best UI is the one you know, unless you're bored and your boss is paying the bill.
No. It is on par with Windows in all those respects, some are a bit better and some are a bit worse.
So, what is the problem? Lack of software? Games, yes, but that's about it. No, it's because everyone has learned to live with all the odds and quirks of Windows and Office, and so it's simply a learning experience. "Where the hell did they hide that? Where is my button?"
Then again, that's exactly what Windows and Office do with each new version. It's all they can do to make a different product, as functionally the changes are very small.
If you want a great upgrade for Office 2000/XP/2003, forget about Office 2007! And don't mention Windows Vista either. Just go for OpenOffice 2.0. It works exactly as you expect it to, and it fixed the bugs that aren't in the pretty awful Office 2000/XP user interface, as they copied that exactly (including the bad stuff) for about 99%.
Then again, a new Windows or Office that offers weeks of playtime is irresistible for your average office worker. Which makes the whole Linux debate moot, when upgrading to a new Microsoft product.
Recap: The best UI is the one you know, unless you're bored and your boss is paying the bill.
DiGuru said:
Because it's a pita to work with and requires people to actually learn loads of stuff to be able to do anything useful with it. Add to that lack of good commercial SW and lacking comatibility to loads of widely used Win-based SW used in pretty much every company, as well as abysmal driver support, lack of games and having a bunch of different distributions. A long way to go still.
