On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 23:44:27 +0200, clipka wrote:

> 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.)

Exactly. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message