What Happened To A Standard Interface?

[Ed Hansberry]

Remember the days of DOS, when every application had its own user interface? (For those that are too young to remember the days when DOS ruled the planet, just go read another thread on OlsenSisterThoughts.com or something :wink: ) When you opened up an application, there is no telling how the menu would be laid out, how you would access it or what the commands would be. Then, Windows 3.0 began to bring all of that under control. You could open Windows applications and even if you had little idea what the application did, you could open files, print them, close the application and a few other things. Then, you could customize your user interface. Didn't like the blue application bar? Make it red, and <i>all</i> applications honored that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2006/20061113ui-lg.jpg"><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2006/20061113ui-sm.jpg" /></a><br /><i>Click for larger image</i><br /><br />Now, we are headed back to where the application writer is making up their own custom user interfaces and are not paying any attention to what the other applications look like, nor do they honor any of the visual preferences of the user. The above picture has Outlook 2003 in the background, and that does a pretty good job of following the user's preferences. Then, there is Internet Explorer 7 in front of that. The colors match my preferences, but where is the menu? Yes, I know you can enable the menu as a "toolbar" but then it sticks it under the address/navigation bar instead of at the top. Well, it could be worse I guess. In front of that is Windows Media Player 10, and it has some hokey down arrow that looks like a Windows 3.x "minimize" button that creates a flyout menu. :roll: And does WMP10 care one whit about my color preferences? Do you see the color blue in my theme anywhere? In front of that is Windows Live Messenger. It uses a different menu flyout button and has yet another color preference, which still isn't <i>my preference</i>. In front of that is Money 2007. It has seen fit to also customize the close/minimize buttons and also doesn't use my color preferences. This one has a real menu though, except, believe it or not, 99% of it's functionality can't be found in the menu. You have to use tabs to get to things, and then buttons and links. And finally, my personal favorite, Audible Manager 5, which you can configure to any color you like, as long as you like "what-the-heck-did-that-baby-poop-in-its-diaper green." And for good measure, Audible stuck some low res really hideous close/minimize buttons at the top. By the way, if any of you are fortunate enough to be using Audible Manger 4.x or lower, do not upgrade. :evil:<br /><br />If I had iTunes installed, I am sure I would be shown Apple's lovely glass or stainless steel interface. Bleh. Can application developers get creative in how the application works and leave the border and menus alone? I can see some apps might want those turned off, as WMP10 does, but can I turn them on please? Maybe it is just me. I like consistency. I like my desktop to look somewhat organized, but that thing above looks like a random jumble of UIness. I know... what does this have to do with Windows Mobile? Everything. Every one of the apps above is used in conjunction with Windows Mobile, and chances are, you have most/all of them installed too and your desktop looks equally chaotic. Well, except for Money 2007, which no longer supports Windows Mobile. I guess in a way I am thankful Windows Mobile has such little screen real estate that developers leave it alone, and all of my apps look the same, and honor the theme I choose. :) What about you? Do you like all the differences or would you rather developers leave that stuff alone?

[185driver]

Incredible. That's the second post in a week that Ed has represented my views so eloquently. The first was the ActiveSync 4.x post from Friday. Thanks, Ed. If you should decide to run for President, you have my vote. :wink:

[lorcro2000]

You definitely have a point. Whenever someone tacks on an entirely different UI on a program than the one that is default for the OS, it creates a learning curve that is completely unnecessary.

Media player, however, is a skinnable application and there is a skin built-in that allows you to revert to something at least windows-like in its behaviour, the "corporate" skin.

IMHO, it should have been the default, but this is Microsoft after all.

I also agree that the UI for Explorer 7 is pretty bad. Office 2007 will also be writing its own ticket when it comes to the UI - menus are pretty much gone entirely and you'll be clicking on large buttons instead, etc. Microsoft has more info about that. (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA101679411033.aspx)

This is bad not just because users have to learn a new UI with every frickin app, but it also shoots large holes in making the apps accessible for people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, I don't think griping by just a few users will help. It's Microsoft... "take what you get and be happy and shut the f-ck up" could probably sum up their point of view. :P

[sooby77]

I agree completely. Consistency is key in any UI design. As I teach a web page design class, I stress endlessly how a template should be used (in many cases) so that you pages look consistent and professional. There's nothing like having the users frustrated trying to navigate your site.

Talk about learning curves! How do you expect to make technology more user friendly if you can't even keep something as simple as UI consistent?

[Chris Spera]

...Maybe it is just me. I like consistency. I like my desktop to look somewhat organized, but that thing above looks like a random jumble of UIness...

No. Its not you. I've noticed this myself, and don't like the road we're going down either.

[SteveHoward999]

I typically switch off all that theme stuff on XP - I prefer the performance gain on my slightly challenged old laptop. That makes the contrast between my normal interface (looks like Windows 2000) and the other self-interfaced applications even greater. I don't appreciate it. I'm not a designer with an eye for colour or form or whatever, so don't force your designs on me. Square boxes with square edges work just fine for this guy thank you very much.

I'll choose performance and functionality over prety colours any time!

[JesterMania]

I agree that the differing interfaces makes the initial learning curve to a program more daunting for many. I've certainly noticed this trend myself, but find that over time, I get accustomed to whatever unique interface is thrown at me so it doesn't really affect my work flow. Dare I say...I actually grow to appreciate the unique GUI designs of each program, but that's just me I guess :lol: . It just affects me in the initial learning stages of that particular program.

On another note though, I think this non-uniformity in UI design has more to do with marketing than ever before. It seems like nowadays that not only hardware but software (both applications and operating systems) are gearing more for eye-candy, possibly as a way to attract the attention of prospective users/buyers.

[Jason Lee]

How long have we had the same UI? Maybe it is finally time for a change? Something more efficient perhaps? Things change, people change, usage changes... Hopefully this will move us in the right direction for a new UI standard. One that is faster and easier to use with less of a learning curve for new users. But that will come with a slight learning curve for us old users.

Having everything in about the same place in the menus at the top in most every program is nice for me.. But do you have any idea how long it took me to train my mother where to find that one little option she wanted that was 4 submenus deep on the tools menu??? New can't be all that bad. But i do agree there should be some kind of standard new. :)

[egads]

Yea brother!!!

I could not beleive how pissed off I got because I could not drag IE7's menu bar about the navagation bar. Is IE7 the shape of things to come in Vista? I just wish they had a "IE Classic" option that would put th eUI back the way it was.

I'll get used to it, but I sure don't like it...

[SteveHoward999]

Change is not bad. Change is good.

But.

The reason PCs and Windows in particular became so popular is that Micorosft created thhe unifying UI that everyone has become comfortable with.

Many of us are constant computer users, used to a great many pieces of software with different UIs and different purposes. But the average user exposed to a lot less variety in their day-to-day use of computers. These are people who use Outlook or Outlook Express, Internet Explorer and Word ... and basically nothing else. They typically have limited skill in using those tools, and have problems with the 'old familiar' interface due to limited use and exposure.

For some, adding newer interfaces as discussed above will be a nightmare - they had enough trouble getting to grips with what they know today. For others it may not make much difference... they'll still fumble around slowly gettting done what they need to.

For the rest of us, I doubt there's a significant issue. We learn the interfaces quickly, and get on with what we need to do, regardless of whether the interface is particularly good or bad or ugly.

[mmidgley]

if you don't like it, don't use it. simple enough, eh?

when it comes to free browsers for your desktop OS, there are choices. but when dealing with PocketPC, our choices are more limited.

my brother has a Nokia 700 which is a very nice (linux) device, but with the software it has and is available for it, he can't really get much done and so he also has a PPC (and/or Palm) phone device for getting things done. hopefully our microsoft software and linux (in this example) aren't on a path to change places on funcitonality vs. beauty... or hopefully they are. :D

sometimes just being able to do certain things means dealing with the way the software author made it work. i can live with that... to a degree.

m.

[BrianD]

I like my desktop to look somewhat organized, but that thing above looks like a random jumble of UIness. ... What about you? Do you like all the differences or would you rather developers leave that stuff alone?

I agree totally with you. And this is one of the (many) reasons that make me prefer using Mac OS X to XP (actually, I use XP mostly for HPC &amp; PPC-related tasks).
A standard menu bar at top of the screen and a consistent user interface for well-behaved applications (still the majority of existing applications) contribute to making OS X far easier to use than every other OS.

Fully working drag and drop helps too, in my opinion, but this has nothing to do with the UI (or does it?).

[bcries]

Hansberry's sentiments seem reasonable, but I'd like to raise a few counterpoints:

Windows 3.x apps weren't entirely uniform in interface, and would have grown more diverse, had the OS been around as long as XP has been. Remember Print Shop Deluxe, with its gawdy huge OK and Cancel buttons - a big neon green check box on one, and a red "X" on the other? Remember Corel Draw, which always had its own thing going on? Finally, remember old multimedia CD-ROMs (i.e. Grolier's Encyclopedia) which pioneered their own graphic/hyperlink interface? And major games never bothered much with Win 3.x or Win95 interfaces - they just stayed in DOS, for the most part.

A general theory of Windows interface uniformity - the Microsoft interface is designed to meet the needs of its Office suite. To the extent that other 3rd party apps carry the same goals and business purposes as Office, their UI needn't be any different. But as Windows life cycles grow longer, MS app releases increasingly foreshadow a more general Windows interface to come. Office 2007, IE 7 and WM11 all contain the more bubbly, translucent/glassy elements of Windows Vista.

If it seems like Microsoft is breaking more and more of its own classic UI rules, maybe that is because the PC is used for a far more diverse set of tasks than originally convieved by Win 3.x design. Internet and multimedia apps may have began with the standard title bar, menu, toolbar pattern of Office apps... but this hardly makes sense, when browsing the internet or navigating a music collection is quite different than building a spreadsheet or a document.

Not only is UI diversity a good thing, but I would argue that it has been advanced by 3rd party apps that have gone out and experimented with new UI designs in the first place. Firefox demonstrated that IE 6 could use a facelift; iTunes suggested the same for WM9.

And as for Mac retaining UI stability... well, I'd argue that the minimize-maximize-close trio was a lesson taken straight from Win95. Mac OS is all the better for it.

[shockidelica]

Apple is hardly immune from this. Look at the Finder, iTunes, and application windows (such as Aperture or iPhoto) in Tiger and you will see varying degrees of non-conformity. Don't get me started on the other veneers they're forcing upon users (Front Row and Time Machine in 10.5 come to mind).

[Phronetix]

Apple is hardly immune from this. Look at the Finder, iTunes, and application windows (such as Aperture or iPhoto) in Tiger and you will see varying degrees of non-conformity. Don't get me started on the other veneers they're forcing upon users (Front Row and Time Machine in 10.5 come to mind).

Fair point, but what Apple has that Ed was griping about is the Address Bar at the top of the screen; it is never part of the application window. I can see why Ed would be bugged by this; my experience with XP is not enough to comment fairly, but the OS X interface lends itself to much less disruption in the face of creative (read: unorthodox) app window design.

It seems that there are two issues surrounding Ed's complaints. First is the effect on a particular application's usability. Second is the effect on overall aesthetics. I don't know enough about Windows to know what to do about the aesthetics, so I'll speak to the usability issue instead.

Perhaps the lack of orthodoxy in desgning app windows isn't the issue? Maybe if Windows borrowed from the Mac OS in locating its menu outside of the application window then this would fix usability. Ed, you use Mac OS X, IIRC, so would that in effect cure that side of your beef with Windows?

Dennis

[stlbud]

Before we get to far off in our history we need to remember that Xerox invented the GUI, Apple refined it and defined the concept of standardizations. Microsoft is a "johnny-come-lately" in the world of GUI. And no, I am not an Apple evangelist.

As far as leaving the PDA GUI alone - NOT! Look at any game. Look at the differences between WinCE 2.11, 2000, 2003 and now Mobile 5. They have all been different. I spent a week jamming my stylus into the bottom left corner when the start menu went from the bottom to the top after 2.11.

[BrianD]

Hansberry's sentiments seem reasonable, but I'd like to raise a few counterpoints:

Windows 3.x apps weren't entirely uniform in interface, and would have grown more diverse, had the OS been around as long as XP has been.

:wink: Well... the long life of XP is probably a problem for Microsoft, not something to be very proud of... :wink: :wink: :devilboy:

Anyway, back to the point.
Probably the poor uniformity among Windows apps is due to the lack of strict guidelines on the design of the UI.
Mac OS X developers usually follow the well-known human-interface guidelines (one can find a lot of material at http://developer.apple.com). Also Gnome, one prominent desktop manager on Linux, has something similar describing how to design the interface of a Gnome program. I don't know about KDE, but looking at KDE-based apps it seems that they have a common appearance.

As far as I know Windows is unique (also) in this respect. And, even if design rules exists, clearly they are often broken. At first sight, diversity is a good thing: Windows programs seems like artificial life forms that evolve, struggle for survival, where only the fittest conquer a good market share. In this scenario, having different UI's seems useful because it allows to find new and more modern ways to interact with the user.
On the other hand, it probably confuses the user, as the first poster pointed out. The user has to learn a different way to interact with the application for nearly each program that she/he uses. Very confusing and time-consuming, in my opinion.

And as for Mac retaining UI stability... well, I'd argue that the minimize-maximize-close trio was a lesson taken straight from Win95. Mac OS is all the better for it.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. Could you be more explict on this point?
Classic Mac OS didn't need minimize/maximize buttons, because the top bar of each window could be used for that. Frankly, I don't think Mac OS X is better in this respect: window minimization in-place is much more comfortable and reduces mouse movements, IMHO.

[adamz]

Yeah, no kidding! Wait 'til you install Office 2007. It's not even consistent with itself!!! PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and Access use this new "Ribbon" interface while other applications still use the normal Office 2003 type interface. And then there's Outlook 2007... The main window looks mostly like Office 2003 with the regular menu and toolbars just in different colors. But the email, contact, calendar, etc. windows all use the new "Ribbon" style interface. It's totally screwy!!

Then there's the "Windows Live Mail Desktop" application which is supposed to replace Outlook Express. Another horrible interface similar to Windows Live Messenger.

[Janak Parekh]

Mac OS X developers usually follow the well-known human-interface guidelines (one can find a lot of material at http://developer.apple.com).
Unfortunately, the "theme" obsession seems to be spreading to Apple as well, what with their brushed, unified, and iTunes look-and-feels in Tiger. It's still more consistent than Windows, but this craze, once started with Winamp, seems to be sweeping the entire industry. :(

--janak

[TOCA]

Oh joy :D

Am I happy to be an old school PC user, just sticking to Win 9.X (98SE on the laptop, and ME on the DT), and Office 2000 8)

No need to mingle with UI, everything is where it's suposed to, and everything looking the same :D

OK, I've had to install XP on the DT, as second OS, because most new programs today needs it, and everybody calling me about PC trouble are on XP :?

No, my hardware is not that old school, but I like to be in controll, and that is something M$ dont like, so XP is keeping me away from most of those features, and Vista will be eaven worse on that, with the M$ phillosophy saying: "We know what's best for you!", like taking away ActiveSync via WiFi :evil:

Only trouble I see is, that I'll have to adapt, some time soon, because in a year or so, nothing will work without Vista and Office 2007, just like you wont be able to do annything on Win 3.X today :cry:

[isajoo]

your right about the start menu at the top now, why does it have to be there...it could still be at the bottom...i know that most apps use the bottom for their menus, but if it can work for all pc's uptill today, why not now on ppc. wm5 made softkeys for smartphones and now pushes people with ppc's with wm5 to use them. ui should not have to change. it is a standard, whats next gas and brake pedals switch sides, auto transmission levers work backwards D2,D3, overdrive, reverse then park. speedometers counter clockwise. come on, it just makes sense to stick with what works and what people understand.

[juni]

I like a consistent look too. Believe it or not, but I use the standard blue XP theme on my pc, with the bliss wallpaper. We've been planning to get a new OSX machine and having that "skin" as default seems like a good idea with not much need for modifying. :)

However, when it comes to my Pocket PC I feel it is a much more personal device and I want to modify it to look exactly the way I want it to.

[Tierran]

I know the prevailing notion here is most people want the total consistancy of the UI but I really don't care. I like seeing different things and while I may be a tech geek, I get into the eye candy. I want my stuff to look fun and all that jazz.

I think earlier OSes had to cater to a population that was intimidated by computers. DOS scared most people and it wasn't really until Win95 when you could totally avoid a command line that people really started to get comfortable with a computer.

These days either you use computers or you probably never will and the people that do, for the most part, are no longer intimidated by them. Allowing developers to get cute ;)

[BrianD]

Mac OS X developers usually follow the well-known human-interface guidelines (one can find a lot of material at http://developer.apple.com).
Unfortunately, the "theme" obsession seems to be spreading to Apple as well, what with their brushed, unified, and iTunes look-and-feels in Tiger. It's still more consistent than Windows, but this craze, once started with Winamp, seems to be sweeping the entire industry. :(

--janak

You are right on this point. This is plainly crazy. I have never understood this "theme" obsession, as you call it. I think it only makes programs more bloated and less responsive to user interaction. I don't want to have dozens of different interfaces for the same program, I just want to have one well-thought and simple to use interface. Maybe I am getting too old... :cry:

[petvas]

It seems to me that Microsoft still tries to find a good interface design. I think they are still experimenting! just take a look at the new Office 2007. Where are the traditional Menus? They are just gone! Whilst that might seem cool, it brings the total anarchy in the user interface. The user now doesnt have a consistent interface among his/her applications. I find that a very bad decision from Microsoft and I certainly do not understand it. Just take a look at MAC OS X. There is ALWAYS a menu bar on top and the user ALWAYS know where to find the preferences for an app or the printer menu, etc...
The new Office 2007 comes with its own Start button!!! At the end Microsoft wont offer an OS...Office will be the OS!!![/i]

[TOCA]

These days either you use computers or you probably never will and the people that do, for the most part, are no longer intimidated by them. Allowing developers to get cute ;)

Not quite right, take a look at anny office, and you'll find lots of people having trouble using annything more complicated than Word.

And with every new version of MS Office, there are changes to the menus, leading to users who're lost, and need yet another course for using their programs, again leading to days away from the job, leading to coorporations not updating their systems, because it's to expencive, having half the staff away on courses every year.

Why is it so complicated to give the enduser a choice instead: Keep it the old style, or pimp it?

[II_V_I]

Yeah, I resisted installing IE 7 because of several things, not the least of which is the UN-customizable nature of the beast (compared to IE 6). My first BIG peeve was that the Forward-Backward buttons are permanently glued to the upper left corner of the window.

Any motion study will tell you that it makes more sense to put functions which are used more often near the center of a work area. So in IE 6, I kept my Forward-Backward buttons POSITIONED right smack in the middle of the Address Bar, with my Favorites button very near them so that it was less distance to move the mouse to get to the stuff I use most often.

Second BIG peeve: The History button (and others) are now buried under the IMMOVEABLE Favorites button's menu, and as far as I can tell, CANNOT be positioned on the Tool Bar (as they can in IE 6).

I don't know about the rest of you, but the buttons I use most are: Home, Favorites, Back(ward) and Forward. Making these buttons immoveable is really irksome, but to position them at the extremes of the screen reveals that the team which designed this whole layout just wasn't thinking like a USER. Maybe they thought it LOOKED nice. :roll: (gggggrrrrrrrrr)

Third BIG peeve: The entire top line (just under the Title Bar) is where the Menu Bar normally resides. Now, the Menu Bar is below the Address Bar, and, like most other things in IE 7 is now IMMOVEABLE.

Fourth BIG Peeve: The Tool Bar in IE 7 (with the Home button) is stuck way down on the Tab Bar to the right of the screen, and cannot be moved up alongside what used to be known as the Address Bar. I've got this Long Honkin' Address Bar taking up nearly the entire first bar! The result is that it takes THREE lines of menus to display IE, eating up a heck of a lot of space in the SHORTEST dimension of my display (top to bottom).

All these are gripes similar to yours, and they are limited to the new UNFLEXIBLE version of IE 7. I didn't even get into the color stuff and other things you mentioned! You did a good job with that.

[halr9000]

I agree totally with this article. I think the most amazing part is that Microsoft is the one blazing the new trail here. If I'm not mistaken, you were unable to use the Windows Logo and get certification in their program unless you accommodated their UI guidelines. I think MS is doing this as a direct result of Apple's software (i.e. iTunes and to a lesser extent, Quicktime) and their "novel" UI decisions such as lack of all the context menus and title bars that we've become used to over the past 10+ years. I don't like the trend.

[dsincic]

At the beginning of GUI everything looked great: consistent, predictable, efficient. Then was the web: now almost every website has its own navigation schema, you often have to wander around with your ponter to even imagine how to navigate (the dreadful "click to activate this control" is the last level of non-ergonomy). It was marketing and graphics that led all this fantasy to us.
Some applications need a different user approach to the interface (some like Autocad actually need a deep refurbishment to the UI), but the matter is: if your app has a plain standard look, it seems an old app. No way, the no-techno-user won't appreciate it if it hasn't all the colors and animations of a Flash website. Sad, very sad...

[Jason Dunn]

I know the prevailing notion here is most people want the total consistancy of the UI but I really don't care. I like seeing different things and while I may be a tech geek, I get into the eye candy. I want my stuff to look fun and all that jazz.

I'm with you: I quite like using an application and it having a unique UI. There's certainly a point where things can go too far and be all crazy, but WMP11 and IE7 work and look just fine in my book.