> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Jul 7, 2004, at 10:04 AM, The Fool wrote: > > >>>> Minesweeper. > >>>> Winamp 2.x > >>>> Visual Studio. > >>>> Notepad. > >> > >> Winamp has basically the same UI as any other media player, and the > >> same panoply of completely nauseating skins available. Visual Studio
> >> is > > > > > > Winamp did it first. Others copied. Including things like the > > title-bar > > mode, Visualizations, plugins, etc. > > I don't have dates to argue whether Winamp predates QuickTime, but I > agree that Winamp has introduced many usability (if not user interface) > features. > > >> amazing simply for the fact that it has *so much* UI, but it is still > >> very usable. > > > > The fact that you can add, change, or delete any and all UI elements > > including menus? > > Sure, why not. Lots of other programs permit that, too. Even vim. But > I'm not arguing with you here: Visual Studio is an impressive > achievement. > > While it is nowhere near as configurable, I've always been very > impressed with Excel's usability, considering it's many, many features. > > >> I'm assuming that Minesweeper and Notepad are trolls. > > > > They are simple, clean, uncluttered, minimalist designs. > > Sure, whatever. They're not minimalist, they're simple: they're just > programs that don't do much, so there's not much need for UI. They're > also not particularly original. Any number of "one-trick pony" > Macintosh Desktop accessories from as far back as 1984 are even simpler > -- there's not even a menu in the window, which both Notepad and > Minesweeper sport. They also never crash. Doing a small number of things well is better than doing a large number of things poorly. > > An example of good UI is the Macintosh designers' decision to put the > menubar at the top of the screen, not the top of a window, making it > MUCH easier to hit. Because it's at an edge, there's no chance of > overshooting it and having to backtrack. It effectively makes the > target infinitely tall -- instead of having to try to decelerate and > land the pointer in a 20-some pixel-high strip near the top of a > window, you can just slam the pointer up against the top of the screen > and it automatically stops there. Most people learn how to control their mouse.. > > In another message, The Fool mentioned Windows' consistent control-key > shortcuts. That was borrowed from the Macintosh Human Interface > Guidelines. And they got it wrong, too: the control key is often > located where it must be pressed with the *side* of the little finger, > where the Apple command-key is always located on either side of the > space bar, where it is operated by the thumb. This may seem like a > small thing, but I broke my little finger last year, and found that it > was constantly sore when using windows, but was able to heal when using > the Mac. Wouldn't that be the designer of the keyboard that IBM originally used? The Key shortcuts I mentioned have been around since ye olde days of MS-DOS. > > I'm really not trying to make this a Win v. Mac thing, but I find that > Linux (and Solaris and other Un*x flavors) tend to follow Windows UI > rules, and I just can't find other examples of *computer* user > interfaces that are anything like the Mac in terms of ease of use. Like having only _*ONE*_ godd_a_m_ned mouse button? Or requiring the OS to eject floppy disks (and keeping files on the floppy disks open instead of closing them). Or Not having function keys? (Even the s_h_i_t_y mainframe terminals have function keys). _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
