Coffeehouse Thread

27 posts

My ideal UI

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Rather than having everyone post their UI concepts that usually exist for "flashy" value or eye-candy rather than sheer usability, I present to you my ideal user interface that puts the emphasis on usability, functionality, and user speed; rather than just pretty looks hidden beneath 3 layers of menu options.

    Introducing, W3bbo's ideal UI.

    As you can see, it combines Groupbar with TLB. (Although in my TLB installation I've disabled menu arrows to save space).

    Comments?

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Looks like you should be using Linux

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Looks like you should be using Linux


    Far from it.

    KDE is similar to what I want, but I feel the UI needs more refinement, also it's far too "blocky" and hard to customize. (The buttons are too big for starters)

    As for Gnome, it can get unresponsive at times, and it doesn't support task-grouping. Oh, and having 2 bars isn't the best of options either.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Beer28 wrote:
    I think the perfect desktop UI is one that the user can customize. drag the system tray to the upper left hand corner, add applets to the taskbar, have a mac style launcher if you want. Have multiple desktops. Change the close, minimize maximize buttons to the other side of the titlebar, make new styles with xml style sheets, do whatever you want. Have options to roll up windows like mac, drag maximized windows back to normal, instead of trying to and going mad like typing the ls command in cmd.exe. Go crazy.

    Wait, um...


    HAHAHA...

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    Beer28 wrote:
    seriously, when I use windows, I don't know which one is worse, not being able to drag maximized windows, or not being able to use ls in cmd.exe

    Both are super annoying. It's the kind of annoying that makes you want to smash your fist into your dessert.



    Thats why the first thing I do is install unix utils onto my computer. Though I don't know how to  fix the maximized windows problem, never minded that much.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Beer28 wrote:
    seriously, when I use windows, I don't know which one is worse, not being able to drag maximized windows, or not being able to use ls in cmd.exe

    Both are super annoying. It's the kind of annoying that makes you want to smash your fist into your dessert.



    The maximized windows...eh small annoyance...plus there is this great bars and Maximize and Minimize windows...and they restore the maximized size as well!

    Oh dir=ls to my best understanding.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Cybermagellan wrote:

    The maximized windows...eh small annoyance...plus there is this great bars and Maximize and Minimize windows...and they restore the maximized size as well!


    Huh?

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Oh dir=ls to my best understanding.


    What they are referring to:
    C:\>ls
    'ls' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
    operable program or batch file.

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    Cybermagellan wrote:

    Oh dir=ls to my best understanding.

    When you get used to the unix command line it starts to make your brain hurt when you try and type dir instead of ls just because of familiarity.

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    IRenderable wrote:
    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Oh dir=ls to my best understanding.

    When you get used to the unix command line it starts to make your brain hurt when you try and type dir instead of ls just because of familiarity.

    Not really.  Given that I usually know what OS I am working on, I can mentally switch from "Windows mode" to "Linux Mode".  Maybe I'm a genetic freak or something.  Of course, it gets confusing after I set up my alias profile in Linux to have dir being the same as ls and then install cygwin on Windows. 

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    DoomBringer wrote:

    Not really.  Given that I usually know what OS I am working on, I can mentally switch from "Windows mode" to "Linux Mode".  Maybe I'm a genetic freak or something.  Of course, it gets confusing after I set up my alias profile in Linux to have dir being the same as ls and then install cygwin on Windows. 


    Yeah that is what I usually do...once I get to CL and type dir and get an error I usually do the conversion in my head. Maybe we're both Genetic Freaks or something?

  • User profile image
    bluvg

    Beer28 wrote:

    Ultimately that's too much for windows users though.


    This kind of customizability would be a support nightmare.  I know of users that don't know their right from their left (literally!), and being able to count on the location of the Minimize, Restore/Maximize, and Close buttons is a necessity.  I'm all for UI innovation, but allowing customization to the extent that everyone is able to have their pet widget in its "proper" place?  No thanks.

  • User profile image
    Jaz

    ugly (I need to watch my language) UI w3bb0, stick to coding and let others do the UI development

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Beer28 wrote:
    bluvg wrote:
    This kind of customizability would be a support nightmare.  I know of users that don't know their right from their left (literally!), and being able to count on the location of the Minimize, Restore/Maximize, and Close buttons is a necessity.  I'm all for UI innovation, but allowing customization to the extent that everyone is able to have their pet widget in its "proper" place?  No thanks.


    Well, it boils down to whether you want your computer OS to dictate to you or whether you want to dictate to it.
    My computer tells me this is the way it's gonna be? or I tell my computer this is the way it's gonna be!

    Is your computer a tool or an entertainment system similar to a television set?, and thus is the difference between modern day operating systems and the people who use them.


    Like most Linuxy people, you Still Dont Get It.  I will now explain it to you, but I imagine that like all Linuxy people you have this weird mental block that makes it impossible for you to Get It.

    Most people dont want to be able to tell there computer the way it is going to be. They are users. They want to be able to sit down at a PC and have it work just like all the other PC's they sit down at and use. If it doesnt work exactly the same way, they become confused and afraid. They do not want to have to know if this is KDE, GNOME, Whatevertheheckelse. No standardisation of the desktop, no Linux winning on the desktop.

    I imagine you will read that and just see the Fnords.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Beer28 wrote:

    If that's true, wouldn't they be better off on a closed system running firmware, if they only use email, and the web browser with firmware upgrades?


    Frankly, yes.

    If you could build a computer that did absolutely everything a user needed but that worked more like a VCR in that you just took it out of the box, plugged it in and never had to install/upgrade/maintain it at all then 99% of people would be delighted.

    Computer engineers, however, are very far from reaching such a nirvana.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    One thing that always gets me is that you can't do "cd.." in bash, you have to do "cd ..", it's gotten so bad that I usually add that space in Windows too. I have no trouble switching between ls/dir, although I tend to configure dir to mean ls -alg.

    Monad in its default configuration accepts both ls and dir as aliases for get-childitem.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    Sabot

    My perfect UI is one in which it's pretty obvious where I can find my programs, configure my machine or execute commands that I can understand from one machine to another.

    Lets not knock the Start button to much, it follows the basic principle that an easy to use hierarchy has a single standard point of origin.

    I prefer my UI to be uncluttered with as few buttons or widgets as possible. I do love clever widgets like the next man, but just not to start with.

    I'm also not a fan of the old grey Windows look, yuck! I do like themes.

  • User profile image
    bluvg

    Beer28 wrote:
    bluvg wrote:
    This kind of customizability would be a support nightmare.  I know of users that don't know their right from their left (literally!), and being able to count on the location of the Minimize, Restore/Maximize, and Close buttons is a necessity.  I'm all for UI innovation, but allowing customization to the extent that everyone is able to have their pet widget in its "proper" place?  No thanks.


    Well, it boils down to whether you want your computer OS to dictate to you or whether you want to dictate to it.
    My computer tells me this is the way it's gonna be? or I tell my computer this is the way it's gonna be!

    Is your computer a tool or an entertainment system similar to a television set?, and thus is the difference between modern day operating systems and the people who use them.


    No, that's not it at all.  What you're saying reflects a single-user mindset--and even in that respect it's not necessarily desirable.  In a company of nearly any size, consistency has many benefits, particularly when it comes to support.  You can either have an enormous support staff and burden to support nearly every hardware, software, and setting combination on earth--and if it's a company that collaborates, confusing every employee along with it--or you can trim it down to a few reasonable options and make everyone's life much easier.  It's like picking government over anarchy--no one gets everything they want, but the collective benefits to each individual are actually greater than that of total individual freedom.

    If you want to work by yourself and provide all your own support, knock yourself out.  But working in IT, I've seen this happen all the time--someone wants their own pet software/setting/whatever.  They press for it, and IT says, "Ok, but we will not be able to support it."  They say, "Oh, no problem--I'll take care of it myself."  Later on, either they will have some problem that IT will HAVE to fix, because:

    1.  Their supervisor or some other exec will say "We need their ____ to work with our system--NOW!!"

    2.  They will say, "I know I said that I'd support it myself, but I have something totally critical in there and the program is hosed and I haven't a clue how to fix it and you have to get this working for me!!  And I need it YESTERDAY!!"

    3.  Someone else (or several people, or an exec) will say, "Hey, that program is perfect; I/we/the company needs it."  You've already let one person have it, so now you're stuck supporting it--nevermind that the software may be written for a totally different purpose, doesn't scale, is flaky, doesn't integrate with anything, has bizarre licensing schemes, is the worst product in its category on the market, has zero support, is made by a company about to go out of business, seldom is updated (or is updated way too often, or in a very disorganized fashion, or has a product roadmap that will take it in a completely different direction than what you're using for) has no collaborative features, and/or doesn't play well with others, etc. etc. etc.

    Most of the time, this doesn't serve the best interests of the company--and that's why the employees are there, not for their own pet UI/program/setting/what-have-you. 

    Furthermore, a lot of times, these settings/programs/etc. aren't even efficient always for the end user.  I know users that keep their addressbook in Cardfile.exe (or Notepad!).  Of course they'll say, "I'm more efficient this way."  Sorry, pal, you're not.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.