11–20 of 35 posts
Shouldn't this entry link to one of the original articles instead of to some random, er, symbiont? Sorry if I'm missing something here; I'm the new kid.
I don't know if I can agree with the stick shift argument. There are benefits over an automatic transmission, and you can choose the same model of car with either transmission types. I'd equate the differences to having a settings page with defaults and then advanced user options. I like a better design than not, but I think the traders use bloomberg terminal largely for the data that it displays. I don't think that…
How is a black background with orange text a "blatant UI flaw"?
While there's often an initial loud and forceful resistance to change, it dies down as people get used to the new system, except for a few die-hards. In the example above, it took about two months for the community to come around and realize that removing some obvious pain points let the players focus more on strategy and whatnot. Of course, it helps that the new system is clearly superior to the old system. Microsoft Office's Ribbon, on the other hand, is not clearly superior, so people still bitch about it years after it was introduced. I happen to think it's superior in theory, but the implementation was botched a bit (menu names and organization not intuitive), so it's not a clear upgrade.
I took a gander at the comparison on http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007/06/termin... , and the whole article just annoys me. If they could focus less on "oh dear, this isn't going to win any design award" and more on making the software more efficient to use, I am confident they would not have faced the wholesale rejection that they complain about.
The current design is easy on the eyes. A black background with bright text is easier on the eyes than a glaring white flashlight with some thin black text on it. (I wonder if the misconception that dark background is bad stems from print, where it is a legitimate complaint?) Fun test: try using each of black-on-white and white-on-black at 3AM with bloodshot eyes and see which one gives you a pounding headache and which one allows you to focus on your work.
The current design is compact, and uses nice color-contrast techniques to group regions, while the "improved design" wastes a ton of pixels for spacing between the regions instead. Less eye-travel, less scrolling, less next-page-ing makes for more efficient (and therefore more relaxed) use.
How is a black background with orange text a "blatant UI flaw"?
The fascinating thing about graphic designers is, if you use Photoshop then what do you get, a tool palette, in stark black and white, full of cryptic symbols. In other words, they tacitly acknowledge that for a busy professional, learning a "difficult" interface is fully worthwhile. Yet they continue to peddle "design" as if this isn't the case...
The pallet interface is also what we're used to. Most people, were they to set out to build a pixel pusher app, would start with a basic pallet UI. Unless of course they were specifically aiming to get away from that.
Also, Photoshop is a perfect example of "The more painful the UI is, the more satisfied these users are".
This is because (A) there is more to design and usability than visual design, and (B) some systems design should be optimized for the expert user, not the general user.