views:

405

answers:

9

This is a question for anyone that has dealt with UI's or has a passion for UI's.

There are numerous good user interface designs. Ranging from the iPhone UI (Black transparency w/blue highlights), to Windows XP (Blue and green fisher price), to Mac OS X (Blue/Grey matte), to the colourful World of Warcraft UI.

What makes one user interface better than the next? Why do we find transparency appealing in the right context? There are various designs used in software that look VERY different from others. Yet, as vastly different as they are, we find them very appealing for some reason.

What features do you believe make an excellent user interface? such as: colour schemes, and material styles (matte, glossy, plasticy), etc do you prefer and like in a graphical user interface that you have come across or would like to see implemented?

+4  A: 

I'm not sure where it comes from and I'm paraphrasing but:

The best interface is the one you never know is there

The more the interface lets me focus on the task at hand, the better. To me that means no animation, all non-vital functionality and interfaces are hidden and if I expect an action to produce a result (say draging something makes it move) it should.

I'll highly recommend Don't make me think by Steve Krug as a light but informative read on the subject.

Kit Sunde
The first place I remember reading this sentiment is in Don Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things".
Bill the Lizard
+1 to Don't make me think by Steve Krug
chakrit
One should not under-value animation. If used correctly it can actually help greatly towards the goal you just set.
Vilx-
@Vilx - I'm really trying hard to think of any reason other than "here look at me, I want you attention" as a reason to ever use animation. I can understand the appeal, but I've always felt any delay between action and reaction is a waste of time better spent being productive. Got any examples?
Kit Sunde
+1  A: 

I'm not a UI engineer so I'm not necessarily qualified to answer from a design perspective. As a user however, what attracts me is logical and efficient design. For example, like many UNIX-heads, I prefer a command prompt for the vast majority of my work, for the simple reason that I can't get so much done more easily or quickly than through a GUI. Depending on the task, a GUI may be better (e.g. photo galleries, or photo editing beyond simple conversions, page layout, etc.).

When it comes to the average user however, interfaces are designed to try and simplify a concept that's not always logical to the uninitiated. A file browser distills the concept of files and folders into graphical representations people can map to real life objects they understand, even if they have no idea what a computer file really means in terms of sequences of bits. The use of a mouse cursor is meant to map a visual aid to the task of manipulating these virtual desktop items as though it were an extension of the user's hands. Therefore any interface that does this in a more natural or more appealing way (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder here) is going to be preferred for that user.

To me and many others, a minimal GUI with a heavily text-driven interface is appealing because I find mouse movements very inefficient. Text is natural as we're all used to reading and writing in various forms. Yet to many other people, a command prompt is intimidating because it seems cryptic and unpolished. Different criteria simply work better for different audiences, and what's most important at the end of the day is how natural a UI is for someone to use given their background. It's not necessarily just what color the buttons are or what order a menu is in or what kind of shading effect you use. Those things can certainly be factors but ultimately I think it's how instinctually easy it is for a user to find necessary functions and understand their effects.

Jay
Your second paragraph reminds me: When Apple first made UIs where icons represented files and folders on disk and windows represented files or folders loaded into memory, they probably wrote in the manual: "This X represents Y". But the users soon took to thinking "X **is** Y". Mind-opener for me.
harms
+4  A: 

"Appealing" and "excellent" (or "useful") are extremely different concepts, to me, when talking about graphical user interfaces.

For example, I always remove the Windows XP or Vista GUI themes on every Windows installation I make, since, for me:

  • those effects just slow down the system, and take system resources
  • they clutter, IMHO, the working area (icons are too big, buttons are too rounded, effects are annoying, etc.)

So, a Mac OsX or Vista desktop may be appealing for random people or to stick a photo on some magazine, but when it comes to usability, you must remove more than add to your GUI.

friol
A: 

Look at what other companies make. Apple and MS above all (MS interface are more appealing than most programmers want to admit). Look for subtle details and try to stay in line with the OS theme, if the user has chosen a theme, he probably has a reason.

Don't forget the real usability in these steps: compatibility with high contrast, high dpi, customized colors, screen readers.

Unless you are programming specifically for the uber-user market, ignore most geek suggestions. Not even all expert programmers/sysadmins prefer command line over GUI (you operate faster but you use more of your brain and lose focus from what you were really doing - most times is suboptimizing), and many ones even prefer the funky themes over the basic windows one - they bring some colour in your life and do not give you the sensation of living in a windowless basement all the time :)

Marco M.
A: 

I would like to clarify the question a bit further.

I am not asking about whether people prefer the console or the GUI. I would like to know what aspects of a graphical user interface appeal to you and people in general.

For example, the glossy black transparent interfaces appeals to me. I couldn't tell you why, they just looks quite amazing to me, however some people do not like it.

So, what aspects, colour schemes, and material styles (matte, glossy, plasticy) do you prefer and like in a graphical user interface that you have come across?

I will update the original question above. Thanks :)

Brock Woolf
A: 

clean icons done by a great artist/animator is what makes your breath go away when you look at a great GUI

transparency and color themes only colorize the artwork

artwork is the root of everything in GUI

no artwork, no feeling, no transparency, no animation, no 3d looks, no nice edges.

some people also tend to love when GUI looks as 3D as possible, that's prolly why you love darktransparency stuff, lcd screen is very flat, and our vision is made to see and feel deepness. but in that deepness in the distance, you need something to see, so you need artwork again.

+3  A: 

Simplicity.

barfoon
+5  A: 

Styles come and go, but a good GUI is always consistent. Similar items should look the same; the size, spacing, colors, etc. should follow some pattern. Otherwise it looks like it wasn't put together carefully, and I think it actually makes you mistrust the software.

JW
A: 

When a user interface reads my mind. When I try to make something work and it works. Usually this means there are many ways to make it work and they all work. Like a key that works upsidedown.

This includes: icons, menus, right-clicking, keyboard shortcuts and drag and drop. Everything should do what I guessed it would do.

Glen Lipka