UI Design/UI Components - Why isn't it a solved problem yet?

Question

I've been thinking about the on going "revolution" in UI design and metaphors for interacting with the computer via a GUI and I'm suprised that as long as computers have been accessible through GUI's that programmers are still searching for the best way to allow the user to interact with their programs. It seems that most of the work centers around astetics(which I understand are important) but I don't understand why we are still looking for the magic bullet in UI design.

My question is: Why is UI design and components not a solved problem with accepted and understood approaches?

Answer 1

Probably because like most things, design (and tech, in general) are constantly changing, being worked on and revised. To say that one of the most crucial elements in software can be 'solved' would be an understatement and would be constantly changed again. There is no true definition to the 'perfect' GUI, only because you don't know who your users will be (power users versus casual, more input required vs less).

Answer 2

User Interface is a very subjective subject, what might be ideal (graphically pleasing, efficient) for one person or task might not be ideal for another task or even another person doing the same task.

Also, the different platforms on which GUIs are implemented is ever changing and thus needing GUIs to evolve to meet specific platform demands (touch screens, ie. lend themselves towards a completely different user interface, then a mouse based platform, or even something like an ATM)

However, there are classes and books written on the subject, so there is some level of continuity in the area that has been there for quite some time.

In short, TECHNOLOGY.

Answer 3

I think if you ask Henry Ford the same question about designing automobiles you would have gotten an answer that would equally apply to your question today.

And that answer is, we're still in the infancy of human computer interaction design and we don't yet have enough data to design genuinely ideal systems. And, even if we did we don't yet have the ability to manufacture such an ideal system at an affordable price point.

Much like Henry Ford could not have designed the Bugatti Veryon in his day, nor could he have built it if he could design it. Or the Prius for that matter.

Answer 4

perfection is a moving target

Jacob Nielsen rightfully said about ten years ago that users don't scroll. This isn't true anymore.

Users get trained to user interfaces. Windows 7 doesn't show a system menu icon in the top left corner for many apps (e.g. in explorer), but you can still go there and invoke the system menu. Took me a while to notice the icon was missing for some apps - while using it.

(There are probably much better examples.)

The optimum isn't obvious. Consistency is core in UI, but only deviation from consistency can lead to improvements. You justz can't optimize for "most consistent" or "most creative", both will fail.

it's a cross-domain skill. How many people are programmers, designers and neuroscientists? How many CS university courses teach cognitive models and how they apply to user interfaces? How many programmers pondered muscle memory, feedback loops and cognitive load?

UI's are still designed largely by programmers and sometimes fixed by designers after the fact.

effect is hard to measure
Take the Microsoft Office Ribbon: Judging from the responses, it seems to work better for many, yet is harder by orders of magnitude for others. It was a bold step, no doubt, but was it good? Microsoft does run UI tests, and they did it for the ribbons - whether they screwed up the tests, whether office politics won over facts, or wether the backslash was just wasn't forseeable in the data, I don't know. (But I'd seriously like to)

How many shops can afford user tests? Everyone can do hallway usability, but that just ensures you don't suck.

Skimming along the line
There is low pressure for the perfect UI, there is high pressure for a good enough UI. Given the lack of common knowledge and the high cost of improvement, perfect would not be affordable. The "Apple tradeoff" involves a higher price and technical shortcomings. They are pushing the limits (good!) with bold steps (very good!), which captures a notable but not major market segment. Still they are far from perfect.