[plug] Good GUI Interface Design

[Ben New]

First I'd just like to say that saying "GUI interface" is like saying 
"ATM machine". That's just my pickiness for you ;-)


>> * Usable FROM SCRATCH - none of this configuration bull shit
>
> Indeed. I think the recent GNOME and KDE releases satisfy that fairly 
> well, personally. Many of the remaining shortcomings are being 
> addressed by interop work, integration efforts and other "fill in the 
> holes" work at freedesktop.org.

I agree that KDE works pretty much straight away. The good thing 
(compared to say Windows) is that it *can* be configured and customised. 
In fact if you don't like KDE, try something different. What do you do 
if you don't like the Windows GUI? (Install Linux, I know ;-) but 
assuming that isn't an option...?)


> * TOTALLY consistent
>
> Indeed. Each toolkit or sometimes app (eg Moz, OO.o) has their own 
> open/save dialogs, textfield behaviours, etc - this drives me NUTS as 
> a sysadmin supporting users on a Linux terminal server. I'd love to 
> see a generic '.guirc' or the use of agreed-upon X resources to 
> control basic behaviours like single/double click to open, tab 
> completion or enter directory on <tab>, etc. Visual appearance is (a) 
> a secondary issue, and (b) largely solved by distro developers anyway.
>
> Seeing this solved would handle my #1 concern about linux desktop 
> useability. (shooting the gtk+ file/save dialog in the head would be a 
> close second).

While I totally agree about the GTK+ file dialogs (they Totally Suck), 
I'd have to say there are a number of logistical problems with your 
proposed ".guirc" method.

Firstly, not all software that is run on Linux is "Linux software" - 
i.e. there are also Java apps, Windows apps under Wine (etc), and so on, 
which would have no knowledge of the ".guirc" file. Neither are they all 
developed using the same tools - there are programs written in C, C++, 
Python, Tcl/Tk, and so on. It just seems impractical to have them all 
tied down to the same interface constraints.

Besides that - yes, there are certain behaviours that can be pretty much 
consistent across the majority of software, but there is always the 
exception, and there is always more than one way to skin a cat. By 
forcing standard behaviours (even if they are configurable), aren't you 
limiting the scope for application developer creativity?

Maybe I missed the point of what you are saying...?


> * Preferably usable with only one mouse button, two perhaps - for 
> simplicity sake
>
> *arrrggh*
>
> I strongly disagree with this. I can deal with dropping the middle 
> button as a UI requirement, but I and many others have loathed the use 
> of a single mouse button for quite some time. Not having a right mouse 
> button is /really/ irritating in web browsers, desktop publishing, 
> word processors, and IMHO basically everything else. The expected 
> behaviour is very simple - "give me a menu of things I can do with 
> what I'm pointing at." While Apple likes to claim that a single mouse 
> button makes things "simple", all their UIs support CTL-click and 
> OPT-click to put back all the functionality removed by their 
> "simplification". I'd prefer to right-click than 
> CTL-OPT-hit-k-with-your-nose click personally.
>
> The mac users at work use the right mouse button (upgraded mice, you 
> see) quite extensively in Quark, Acrobat and the Finder. Even the 
> total novice users in our sales dep't seem to have no trouble with the 
> concept of the right mouse button as "what can I do with this item I'm 
> pointing at?".

The ol' number-of-mouse-buttons debate hey?

Personally I find the Mac one-button system highly annoying, especially 
since it just means you have to use the keyboard in combination, as 
already noted. I particularly find those little round jobbies that came 
with Mac G4s (?) to be the most unusable piece of interface hardware 
ever, at least in the desktop arena. I was always rotating the thing in 
my hand, so that pushing the mouse up the desk resulted in the pointer 
moving off to the left or right... maybe that's just my uncoordination 
but I find a mouse with a definite "top" and "bottom" highly preferable.

OTOH, the new Microsoft-style things with 15 buttons running down both 
sides and 6 different scroll wheels are equally as annoying. They have 
those at Murdoch in some of the labs, and I'm always accidentally 
bumping the side buttons which has all sorts of wierd results. Again, 
probably just my uncoordination.

Currently I use a 2-button mouse with 1 scroll wheel and it does 
everything I want it to. I especially like the ability to click the 
"middle mouse button" (aka wheel) for "open in new window" functionality.

Coming back to the original post, KDE is actually usable without a 
mouse, although I wouldn't recommend it! :-)


> * Aesthetically pleasing
>
> ... is a matter of aesthetic preferences. I don't personally agree - 
> while generally nice, I think it's badly damaged by the nasty "brushed 
> metal" stuff and little coloured bead-buttons.

Yep, it's all down to taste and style, which, again, is why I like the 
highly configurable Linux model.


-- 
Ben New
ben at leftclick.com.au

Leftclick Software Development
http://www.leftclick.com.au/