The death of consistency in UI design
osnews.com
The death of consistency in UI design
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#2All of these problems however can (have?) be improved upon. UI consistency will be the last great bastion however, whenever I use a web app I have to spend a considerable amount of time figuring out where everything will be in the UI, this is even true for things like gmail.
Perhaps there will become a defaco standard widget set for web apps?
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#3Doesn't sound like a very old school to me. vi, emacs and a large portion of popular command line tools came about in an era where devising one's own interface and interface conventions was the only route to actually providing an interface. Desktop environments ameliorated this somewhat, but only for common, generic tasks (copying, pasting, etc.). For any specialized or application-specific tasks it's always been roll-your-own, except that now people are actually thinking about the problem before creating the UI.
Consistency is important, but it's not the only factor.
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#4When Apple released its ipod (with the big wheel in the middle), it was nothing like the other players we were used to. Was it horrible? Was I annoyed by the difference? No, I thought it was cool, and I loved my iPod. Some years later, they did the exact same thing with the iPhone. Completely different, and yet, it set a new standard for design.
Now I understand the point of the article, and it's true that it's annoying to see every other small app coming up with new UI conventions. But I guess I'm not too radical about it: if this is the price to pay for innovation in UI design, I'll take it.
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#5Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#6The consistency in Android and iPhone is the touch screen. By removing abstraction, by a limited screen real-estate and thus limited scope of applications, I don't believe this is an actual problem.
In fact one could say that because of the above, exploration and inconsistency should be encouraged.
In the future apps wont be so much about on-screen interaction but rather representing information based on automated real life interaction. (Lots of automation the coming years)
The chrome will be all around you and not on the screen. Only the object/content will be on the screen (and the many screens).
So sure apps are not UI consistent but neither is a hammer, a schrewdriver and a ruler (i.e. apps)
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#7Actually... even past the dark ages anyone remember the popularity of webpagesthatsuck.com?
No matter what the technology someone will need to do something that is out of the bounds of the 'stock user interface'. So you either account for it by allowing everyone to do anything or you limit it...
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#8If the problem with the UI is that it makes it harder to use, then I don't think that consistency is the problem. Lest you believe that I have a sample size of one, I have had my entire family use the iPhone, and they aren't particularly computer/gadget savy. My father, for instance, uses his Nokia "phone book" frequently, however that "phone book" is a taped on list of numbers on the back of his mobile phone. And with a little prompting, he was playing Angry Birds within about 10 minutes. My young daughter, 4 years old, has worked out how to unlock the phone (to my chagrin) and plays "Peppa Pig" at odd hours of the night.
If anything, the darned iPhone interface is too easy to use!
Re: The death of consistency in UI design
#9I'd like to add a thought: maybe inconsistency in UI design is the only way to experiment and actually improve the current state of design. When Apple released its ipod (with the big wheel in the middle), it was nothing like the other players we were used to. Was it horrible? Was I annoyed by the difference? No, I thought it was cool, and I loved my iPod. Some years later, they did the exact same thing with the iPhon…
- Pull down to refresh (where Apple encouraged an explicit refresh button on the bottom of the screen)
- Swipe aside views (where Apple encouraged explicit navigation buttons)
- Slide aside menus (a la Path, where Apple expected tab bars to fulfill that role)
- Fan-out controls (a la Path, where Apple expected the use of drop downs)
The list goes on. I for one am happy that some people are unwilling to just follow the tried and true.