One for the webdesigners | The Coffeehouse

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

The BBC website is undergoing a long overdue overhaul. I vaguely recollect the original (present) site costing somewhere around the 2 million mark.

What faults can you pick from the present page? My hate is the waste of space, i.e. the fact that the page is aligned left. There is loads of content that is crammed consequently. The beta site excels in the use of gradient panels everywhere. I cannot believe that there isn't a single gradient panel in the original site. Can you spot any problems in the beta becuase I can't. Not 1 fault. I presume that type of 'extravigance' would have been frowned upon back then. The designer (s) would have
told, "look, this is the BBC. Keep it simple!"

It's this super clean, crisp ajaxified, design that pleases one no end. Progress is certainly being made. I will use the site more often because of it. I will also spend more time using it.

I've no doubt that http://www.pageflakes.com/ (in my mind) at least changed a lot of things about this type of design. Find me a Win32 smart client that looks as good as any of the above. Answers on a postcard please!

WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

ZippyV
Fired Up

Wow, Pageflakes looks so much better than Live.com in terms of useabillity.

Isshou

vesuvius wrote:
WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

First image? the first image there is the WinForms interface not the WPF interface, the second image is what's done in WPF...

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Gradients.

Must.

Die.

I'm on a personal, ruthless, relentless jihad to evscerate gradients from whatever aspect of software I can.

Guys, we're in 2008. Gradients were cool three years ago.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

PaoloM wrote:

Gradients.

Must.

Die.

I'm on a personal, ruthless, relentless jihad to evscerate gradients from whatever aspect of software I can.

Guys, we're in 2008. Gradients were cool three years ago.

What do you prefer? Surely not solid-colors Perplexed

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

Isshou wrote:

vesuvius wrote:WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

First image? the first image there is the WinForms interface not the WPF interface, the second image is what's done in WPF...

I'll reword this then.

WPF has some catching up top do insofar as providing top-notch UI like the web. Period! Nothing on the desktop compares. Yes you have performance on the desktop, but the UI is invariably abhorrent. Yes, you can tweak things up a bit, with FREE stuff like the Krypton Toolkit, or pay for a full solution from Infragistics etc, but you're talking a lot of money here. You're also setting youself up for a lot of hard work.

If you were a user would you prefer to work with the winforms app or the WPF one? That is what I'm attempting to communicate. Steve Ballmer famously said here Developers, Developers, Developers! I augment it with and Designers, Designers, Designers!

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

evildictaitor wrote:

PaoloM wrote:
Gradients.

Must.

Die.

I'm on a personal, ruthless, relentless jihad to evscerate gradients from whatever aspect of software I can.

Guys, we're in 2008. Gradients were cool three years ago.

What do you prefer? Surely not solid-colors

I am a big fan of whitespace.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

vesuvius wrote:

Isshou wrote:

vesuvius wrote: WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

First image? the first image there is the WinForms interface not the WPF interface, the second image is what's done in WPF...

I'll reword this then.

WPF has some catching up top do insofar as providing top-notch UI like the web. Period! Nothing on the desktop compares. Yes you have performance on the desktop, but the UI is invariably abhorrent. Yes, you can tweak things up a bit, with FREE stuff like the Krypton Toolkit, or pay for a full solution from Infragistics etc, but you're talking a lot of money here. You're also setting youself up for a lot of hard work.

I don't see why that is the case. WPF has exactly the same capabilities as HTML+CSS, plus the whole databinding stuff.

Is there anything you can do on the web (beside having access to mountains of data server side) that can't be done in WPF or even Silverlight?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

PaoloM wrote:
I am a big fan of whitespace.

You must end up with interesting conversations with the windows live messenger team. They crusade against whitespace every day.

But generally I must say I agree with you.

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

PaoloM wrote:

Gradients.

Must.

Die.

I'm on a personal, ruthless, relentless jihad to evscerate gradients from whatever aspect of software I can.

Guys, we're in 2008. Gradients were cool three years ago.

PaoloM, can you show any top-notch web or desktop app that does not use them? The reason they were popular then and are gaining popularity is that it's the only way to deceive the eye into thinking a 2D space is 3D. Incidentally, graphics have moved on immeasurably in the last three years. Both in tools like photoshop CS3 or the up and coming Expression suite, and computer hardware.

Yes, sparse minimal, simple design has it's place, but you want something that looks rich as well. Gradients give you that. Evisceration? I think not!

jamie

evildictaitor wrote:

PaoloM wrote: I am a big fan of whitespace.

You must end up with interesting conversations with the windows live messenger team. They crusade against whitespace every day.

thats what I was thinking.. if anyone uses gradients..its MS.. google on the other hand is all about white space

look at channel 9 .. gradient in the red header, gradient gold bars, gradient communities bar, gradient online bar..

wkempf

vesuvius wrote:

Isshou wrote:

vesuvius wrote: WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

First image? the first image there is the WinForms interface not the WPF interface, the second image is what's done in WPF...

I'll reword this then.

WPF has some catching up top do insofar as providing top-notch UI like the web. Period! Nothing on the desktop compares. Yes you have performance on the desktop, but the UI is invariably abhorrent. Yes, you can tweak things up a bit, with FREE stuff like the Krypton Toolkit, or pay for a full solution from Infragistics etc, but you're talking a lot of money here. You're also setting youself up for a lot of hard work.

If you were a user would you prefer to work with the winforms app or the WPF one? That is what I'm attempting to communicate. Steve Ballmer famously said here Developers, Developers, Developers! I augment it with and Designers, Designers, Designers!

Clueless. Your painting a broad stroke about WPF based on what? One or two applications of it that you've seen? I could counter by showing you a thousand bad web pages. I think you need to look closer at existing WPF samples.

Give me ANY web site you consider to be exemplary when it comes to design, and I gaurantee you I can duplicate it in WPF.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

vesuvius wrote:
PaoloM, can you show any top-notch web or desktop app that does not use them [gradients]?

http://www.google.com

Isshou

vesuvius wrote:

Isshou wrote:
vesuvius wrote:WPF has some catching up to do. By catching up I mean this. Imaging you have to work with an application that looks like the first image every day. Drab, unexciting, demure, somnifacient...

First image? the first image there is the WinForms interface not the WPF interface, the second image is what's done in WPF...

I'll reword this then.

WPF has some catching up top do insofar as providing top-notch UI like the web. Period! Nothing on the desktop compares. Yes you have performance on the desktop, but the UI is invariably abhorrent. Yes, you can tweak things up a bit, with FREE stuff like the Krypton Toolkit, or pay for a full solution from Infragistics etc, but you're talking a lot of money here. You're also setting youself up for a lot of hard work.

If you were a user would you prefer to work with the winforms app or the WPF one? That is what I'm attempting to communicate. Steve Ballmer famously said here Developers, Developers, Developers! I augment it with and Designers, Designers, Designers!

I was only pointing out that in your statement against WPF that you referenced a WinForms sample (picture) and not a WPF sample. You're also referencing someones testing instead of anything done commercially. The bogger even states:

Andrew wrote:

It still needs some work to go to become a good ‘User Interface’, but this already is 100% better on the eyes.

I don't see how you're connecting WPF with being so far behind the web in terms of design... Aren't you saying that WPF is already a big step above the WinForms? Obviously people would prefer the nicer looking WPF interface than the WinForms. Shouldn't that support that WPF should be the next generation of UI on the desktop?

how about we use some examples from Ch9 WPF Wiki App Portfolio?
Wikipedia Explorer for example may not be "graphically revolutionary" but node exploration of Wikipedea content is a novel approach.
UniveRSS is a unique RSS feed consumer that visualized feeds as 3d cubes

Lets not forget that Expression Blend is a WPF application.

It takes time for the community to learn and utilize the tools, this is a new field where you're going to need a good developer AND designer (or groups of both) working together.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

jamie wrote:

evildictaitor wrote:

PaoloM wrote: I am a big fan of whitespace.

You must end up with interesting conversations with the windows live messenger team. They crusade against whitespace every day.

thats what I was thinking.. if anyone uses gradients..its MS.. google on the other hand is all about white space

look at channel 9 .. gradient in the red header, gradient gold bars, gradient communities bar, gradient online bar..

I mentioned that it was *my* opinion. I am but one man in this crusade, but I'm trying to build a fellowship Smiley

I'm also for a general reduction of clutter and colours in Windows... uhm, maybe I should apply for some designer positions Smiley

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

vesuvius wrote:

PaoloM wrote:
Gradients.

Must.

Die.

I'm on a personal, ruthless, relentless jihad to evscerate gradients from whatever aspect of software I can.

Guys, we're in 2008. Gradients were cool three years ago.

PaoloM, can you show any top-notch web or desktop app that does not use them?

I cannot show you Windows (especially XP) because it's full of them. I am retroactively apologizing for that Smiley

vesuvius wrote:
The reason they were popular then and are gaining popularity is that it's the only way to deceive the eye into thinking a 2D space is 3D.

Why do you need 3D? You screen is flat and there are better, more sensible ways to convey depth and element separation/layering.

Take a look at the new Zune software as an example of what I'm talking about.

vesuvius wrote:
Incidentally, graphics have moved on immeasurably in the last three years. Both in tools like photoshop CS3 or the up and coming Expression suite, and computer hardware.

Really? I don't see this evolution...

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

And, before anyone mentions it, I'd make an exception for buttons. Those should be "raised" over the application canvas and be highlighted as user interaction points.

But column headers? Pane backgrounds?

Nah, solid colours are just fine there.

jamie

i like gradients Wink

http://www.channel9.ca/whsbusiness.jpg

Larsenal
ready to give an answer

PaoloM wrote:
Nah, solid colours are just fine there.

I generally agree. However, sometimes a really subtle gradient looks fine. Seeing a gradient that was added just for the sake of adding a gradient makes me cringe!

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

PaoloM wrote:
...

Just out of interest, whereabouts in Microsoft do you actually work (technology, rather than geographically-wise)?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

vesuvius wrote:

evildictaitor wrote:
vesuvius wrote:PaoloM, can you show any top-notch web or desktop app that does not use them [gradients]?

http://www.google.com

Google's revenue is via advertising. The search engine is the feature here, not whether they use a simple design or not. Google are smart enough to realise that they are used in a bish-bash-bosh way. Only after someone uses them i.e. performs a search, do they then present them with the results, plus options that include revenue streams for them. I thought this was abundantly obvious.

The BBC's revenue is via a annual license fee. They have realise that a great deal of their operation lies on the web. Basically, it is the most significant operation apart from live broadcast. Given the amount of users that log onto bbc.co.uk and stay there (hence not in a bish-bash-bosh way), I presume they resolved for a more attractive not too fussy site. I think they have made they correct choice and got the balance right.

Winforms are basically whitespace (albeit the form set to control), and I'm sure evildictaitor and PaoloM are fanatics for them. Incidentally, WPF is lookless and everything is white. Maybe the people in Redmond got it all wrong there, all this fuss about Expression?

Honestly folks!

Whoa there! I was merely mentioning a top-notch web application that doesn't use gradients - it's the classic example of use of whitespace in an application.

I have expressed absolutely no opinion about the superiority of WinForms over WPF or vice-versa, and will continue to not do so until I see good reason. As a consequence I feel that the "fanatic" label might be ott.

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

evildictaitor wrote:

vesuvius wrote:PaoloM, can you show any top-notch web or desktop app that does not use them [gradients]?

http://www.google.com

Google's revenue is via advertising. The search engine is the feature here, not whether they use a simple design or not. Google are smart enough to realise that they are used in a bish-bash-bosh way. Only after someone uses them i.e. performs a search, do they then present them with the results, plus options that include revenue streams for them. I thought this was abundantly obvious.

The BBC's revenue is via an annual license fee. They have realised that a great deal of their operation lies on the web. Basically, it is the most significant operation apart from live broadcast. Given the amount of users that log onto bbc.co.uk and stay there (hence not in a bish-bash-bosh way), I presume they resolved for a more attractive not too fussy site. I think they have made they correct choice and got the balance right.

Winforms are basically whitespace (albeit the form set to control), and I'm sure evildictaitor and PaoloM are fanatics for them. Incidentally, WPF is lookless and everything is white. Maybe the people in Redmond got it all wrong there, all this fuss about Expression?

Honestly folks!

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

evildictaitor wrote:
As a consequence I feel that the "fanatic" label might be ott.

Not quite so, I meant OTT in the sense of fans, the truncation of fanatics.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

evildictaitor wrote:

PaoloM wrote: ...

Just out of interest, whereabouts in Microsoft do you actually work (technology, rather than geographically-wise)?

Program Manager in Windows Experience/Find & Organize. (WEXFOPM Smiley

)

AndyC

PaoloM wrote:

But column headers? Pane backgrounds?

Nah, solid colours are just fine there.

Something more like this then? Wink