Universal GUI (was Re: HIG...)

[Chipp Walters]

Richard et al...

My 2 cents on a Universal GUI.

I've been designing interfaces like many of you from the early HyperCard
days. Talk about Universal GUI! Just about all HyperCard stacks looked
alike...1-bit interfaces, card metaphor, etc.. Interesting enough, HC pretty
much broke many of Apples Human Interface Guidelines (HIG). Later, being a
traditionally trained Industrial Designer, I was delighted to move to
SuperCard, with color interfaces and the prelude to *multimedia.*

One of the very cool aspects of *multimedia* was one didn't have to adhere
to HIG or any GUI model...in fact you invented it with each new project.
This was great for us at Human Code, we ended up creating some really unique
award winning interfaces which ended up launching our company in a big way.
Once again, we stepped away from Apples HIG and created new and exciting
interfaces.

Soon, the Internet came along. Talk about a complete step backwards in GUI!
But, people got used to it. Creating new and unique websites (with
interfaces) is currently big business for a lot of companies. Flash came
along and once again redefined what an interface could be. By now, I hope
you're starting to see my point. Each change in technology and the tools to
build technology offers up new and different ways of doing things. Flash and
Directors timeline metaphor create an application which looks a certain way.
HyperCard's card metaphor creates a different look. I don't really think a
standard GUI would survive even a small time test for our changing platforms
and tools. Granted, I do believe good interface design is necessary in order
to create great products, but I believe good designers should create good
interfaces with or without GUI guidelines.

respectfully,

Chipp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: use-revolution-admin at lists.runrev.com
> [mailto:use-revolution-admin at lists.runrev.com]On Behalf Of Richard
> Gaskin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:26 PM
> To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Universal GUI (was Re: HIG...)
>
>
> Ray G. Miller wrote:
>
> >> However, about Apple--I can no longer consider them to be the
> >> ultimate example of good interface, as they were before.
> >
> > Agreed, Curry, but what other consistent Guidelines are there?
> > Micro$lot? ;-)
>
> The current mess confronting multi-platform developers is costly
> to us all,
> with incalculable time wasted by the majority using Revolution, Java,
> RealBASIC, Director, Flash, or other cross-platform development system.  I
> wouldn't be surprised if the worldwide aggregate of productivity lost to
> such things came to several tens or possibly hundreds of millions
> of dollars
> annually.
>
> Some time ago I was considering an article with petition on a "Universal
> GUI", with the theme of "Put up or shut up."  There's probably a
> more polite
> way to phrase that, but I believe the central idea is important:
>
> As more and more development becomes cross- or multi-platform,
> although most
> modern GUIs share a majority of UI elements (common window
> trimmings, menus,
> button types, etc.), each OS has enough distinctions to drive
> everyone crazy
> trying to be "HIG-compliant" across conflicting HIGs.
>
> So maybe we developers could turn the tables: rather than enslaving
> ourselves to sometimes arbitrary specifications, we take it upon ourselves
> to make one recommendation for a Universal GUI.
>
> Any OS vendor could make suggestions for deviations from common behaviors,
> but they would only be incorprated into the Universal GUI spec if it's
> supported by research, with methodologies and results available for review
> so we can distinguish the truly research-supported recommendations.
>
> We should never have to write two layout routines for dialog controls, in
> which Win and Mac reverse the order of default buttons, for example.  We
> could pick one layout, based on research or, if such supporting
> documentation is unavailable, prevalence among current GUIs,
> making the odd
> one out either substantiate their difference with research or be ignored.
>
> One could rightly argue that a Universal GUI could lead to a
> "lowest common
> denominator" GUI.  We'd have to be watchful of that, but at the same time
> the sum of common elements is not bad, and in its simplicity there may be
> great value.  We could still keep unique appearances, since each
> OS provides
> a heathly set of hooks for rendering controls.  But there's no reason
> layouts, behavior, and nomenclature couldn't be made consistent, with the
> option supported by the strongest research setting the standard
> others would
> be asked to comply with.
>
> I realize it would be an uphill battle and likely without victory.  Worth
> pursuing, or better off left as a thought experiment? ;)
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Media Corporation
>  Software Design and Development for Mac, Windows, Linux, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>  Tel: 323-225-3717        AIM: FourthWorldInc       Fax: 323-225-0716
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>