Interface 7
Volume Number: 8
Issue Number: 7
Column Tag: Interfacial relations
Popular Sentiment: The Emperor's New Clothes or Can You Tell a Book
By Its Cover?
By Joost Romeu, San Francisco, California
Once, the Macintosh interface solicited wonder and amazement. Current
sentiment is much less enthusiastic. Despite notable exceptions, multi-platform
vendors seem more interested in completing interfaces that subscribe to platform
standards than constructing interfaces that complement their users’ need. But what is
even more disappointing is the reaction of intelligent observers who-rather than
decrying the decline of interface values-speak of them as no longer relevant.
Interfacial Relations confronts this critical backlash and the sentiment it has
provoked; probes for reasons behind the sentiment; and discusses how this new
conservatism might affect developers’ willingness to create responsive interfaces in
the future.
Apple's Core
During MacTutor's resurrection and relocation, Apple introduced impressive
hardware updates (the Quadra and the PowerBook), previewed revolutionary hardware
technology advancements (pen based computers and consumer electronics), introduced
fascinating software capabilities (QuickTime), and promised a radical commitment to
RISC. With all of this activity, you'd think there would be more action in the interface
arena, the area Apple's best known for. However, today's interface seems less an
achievement than an Apple afterthought.
Recently, Tog Tognazzini, Apple's chief interface proponent and staunchest
defender of the metaphorical grail-and a number of people from his Advanced
Technology group at Apple-left en masse for Sun Micro systems.
What's does this exodus say about the Macintosh interface? Has Apple gotten too
large to be innovative? Can Apple no longer see past its laurels? Have Apple’s interface
litigations so indentured it to its past achievements that it can't afford to change?
The Macintosh Graphical User Interface (GUI) is not dead. Compare it to
Microsoft Windows and it's clear that the legacy still works. But look at Microsoft Excel
(as Interfacial Relations will do in the future) and you see that some developers are
still intent on pushing the interface envelope.
Developing interfaces in the nineties is going to require a restructuring of the
product development process. More trust is going to have to be placed in the vision and
skill of the UI designer. More heed is going to have to be paid to the user through
usability testing and a careful reconsideration of the developer/customer and the
marketing/customer relationship. And we are going to have to recommit ourselves to
basic interface fundamentals that we seem to have swept under the rug.
Backlash
Late last year, a flurry of articles took the GUI to task-not to criticize its
approach, appearance, or implementation, but to challenge its raison d'etre (reason to
be).
I suspect these criticisms came about because of frustration with a GUI that
seems a bit dated. But I'm bo thered by the mixed messages these criticisms leave in
their wake.
What they all have in common is that they imply the foundations of GUI are
bogus. What they seem to presume is that interface design is a cut and dry procedure.
Interface design isn’t as opaque as accepting an algorithm just because it comes up with
the right answer. (Code implementation isn’t even such a deterministic process.)
Accuracy is essential, but just as programming solutions aren't implemented only
because they’re accurate, interface designs take more effort than just following a style
manual. Interface design can be made more efficient but it can’t be
drawn-and-quartered.
The roots of the problem
Dedication to a cause requires belief in the principles underlying that cause. One
may survive paying lip service to these foundations. But a long run solution requires a
developer committed to underlying principles and willing to call up the extra effort
required to address those principles.
Challenging foundations is a valid and necessary activity, but it should be done
responsibly. Criticisms that depend on gratuitous assertions or faulty logic may do
permanent harm, squelching some of the basic foundations upon which good interface
design was founded.
I contend that these examinations speak more of lazy, noncritical attitudes on the
part of the critic than they speak to a particular interface's ambiguities and
shortcomings. Unfortunately, because these examinations concentrate on buzzwords
such as “user friendly” and “intuitive” they tend to gain more credence than they may
deserve.
And because they’re in popular publications addressed to the general user,
they're likely to influence the developer.
What these criticisms fail to consider is that GUI development is a developing
discipline and not a plug in procedure. To think differently is to undercut the developer
and underrate the technology. It leads to software strong on similarity and stripped of
personality-software’s version of the emperor’s new clothes.
The critics
Frank Romano says that “user friendly” is a computer oxymoron and implies
that the prototypical “rest of us” is a superset of specialists; John Dvorak asserts that
“intuitive” is nonsensical; countless others contend the “paperless office” is an
infeasible fantasy.
How should developers respond? Should they abandon the effort required to
design engaging software and concentrate on bare bones essentials or should they just
provide a set of interface construction tools and let the user sort out whatever interface
might come to him/her?
unfriendly
Frank Romano’s editorial, “Too Many Tools,” recognizes that many GUI's are
still less than friendly. However, he chooses to blame this on the GUI's underlying
foundation rather than a particular program’s flawed interface implementation. He
begins:
“The term “user friendly” is totally meaningless. The only thing easy to use is
something that does nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
He then argues that rather than simplifying tasks by integrating subtasks,
computer programs that adopt a modular approach force the user to customize the
software to the work environment.
The article goes on to bemoan the fact that ”today’s tools are mind-boggling in
their capability” and summarizes: “We have come very far in the last five years but