Am 03.08.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Stephen:

> I think I disagree with that concept.
> For me, education is King or Queen. (I am an equal opportunity know it
> all.)
> When you start simplifying complex software to the extent you think the
> man on the Clapham omnibus can operate it without any training. You are
> doing no one any favours. I learnt a word recently. It is nerfed. And
> that is the Micro$oft way.
> Form should follow function, not the other way around.
> IMO

Good old Bauhaus tradition.

On the other hand, the Bauhaus designers meant something different when 
referring to "form" and "function". To them, "function" included 
ergonomic requirements (such as, you should be able to hold an electric 
razor in one hand conveniently, and the power cord should be placed in 
such a way that you won't strangle yourself with it), while "form" was 
strictly limited to aesthetic aspects.

I think one branch of software development that's doing a pretty good 
job in terms of User Experience is the gaming industry. Look at what 
they do when it comes to graphics configuration: They usually provide 
you with a simple 1-dimensional "quality" setting to balance the 
graphics quality vs. speed, hiding the technical details of what each 
setting actually means in technical terms. At the same time they do 
provide an additional interface for people who think they know better, 
allowing them to tweak all the little details. (And often there's even a 
third tier of technical tweakables, for which there is no user interface 
except a config file.)

Post a reply to this message