Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

patricia.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#141

Post by pier25 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #140
pier25 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a figure mostly absent in these processes. Designers and devs are living in their bubble/silo and don't think like a user. It's very rare to find someone who can understand design, UX, and code and put it all together into a cohesive vision. In my experience, if you have the UX right from the start, then the rest becomes much easier. UX is the foundation that will dictate how it has to be designed and…

Looks like good insight to me. But also in so many cases it needs to be made to work in reverse :\ Even when the pure logic or core process is where the real magic happens, and makes the app what it is, if interfacing with a user is very important you could also say that the UI is the actual heart of the program instead, which ends up calling that wonderfully unique code that may be different than anything else. Or a…

> if interfacing with a user is very important you could also say that the UI is the actual heart of the program instead

If it's meant to be used by humans, then yes. The experience should be the north star.

That doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice everything in favor of this. Obviously you need someone with enough technical knowledge to understand how to balance all the priorities.

Edit:

And by experience I don't only mean the UI per se. Also the performance of the whole system etc.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#142

Post by bravesoul2 »

XorNot wrote: post #56
brazzy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole damn point of calling it "UX" instead of "UI" is to stress that "looks good" is not actually the important part.

I'd argue that this failed though because UX really just means "design for maximum engagement". Which means "keep the time between them using the UX and opening their wallet to a minimum" because that's the only place businesses care. No one is building a delightful UX for running IR spectrometers.

It is really SEX. Shareholder's Equity Experience.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#143

Post by Grosvenor »

DonHopkins wrote: post #114
paddy_m wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What made display postscript so great? I have only seen it mentioned in frothy marketing terms, not an in depth discussion of its approach, why it worked well, and how that compares to other alternatives.

PostScript is great for user interfaces! I've written lots and lots of user interfaces in PostScript. Just not Display PostScript. NeWS was a lot better for making interactive user interfaces than Display PostScript, and it came out a lot earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS The Story of Sun Microsystems PizzaTool (entirely written in PostScript): https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-story-of-sun-microsystems-...…

People you should be paying careful attention to this. You could be living 40 years in the future. Instead, we're were we are and rapidly ossifying.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#144

Post by shove »

paddy_m wrote: post #86
catmanjan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interested to hear about a high quality UI as I have never encountered one

CAD Software. There is CAD vs CAD esports. https://www.youtube.com/live/C1CqIcfDKbQ?t=1987s It seems dominated by solidworks but other programs (NX, Fusion 360...?) are allowed. The bloomberg terminal UI. Some emacs setups. (much more variability than VIM) Some VIM setups. The thing that all of these have in common is that they are designed for experts, not for every user. Also each one of those is a custom full plat…

Another common conflation is graphic design vs application design. Fusion 360 has strong graphic design and meh application design.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#145

Post by throwaway2037 »

menotyou wrote: post #123
throwaway2037 wrote: post #17

This part is genius: > I have made GUIs many, many times and my best case scenario goes something like: > 1. A design has been made, everyone loves it. Detailed drawings have been made. > 2. The devs are told to Make It > 3. The devs Make It, exactly to spec > 4. Everyone looks at it and everyone hates it > 5. So many meetings. So much stress. This Is Terrible! What To Do? > 6. A new design is made. So much better! D…

Arguably lots of UIs getting worse with every iteration of redesign. - Windows GUI went downhill from Windows 7 (or even XP) with every release. - Outlook went from good over fair to annoying so that I finally replaced it as my personal client. These are not the only examples I could name but they are the most prominent. I think the main problem is that both technical staff and UX designers both trying to make someth…

About Outlook: Are you talking about the Win32 desktop client or the M365 web app? If the desktop client, what has gotten so much worse? And is there a better alternative to the Exchange calendar? I have not seen one in my experience at mega corps.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#146

Post by theqwxas »

DonHopkins wrote: post #114
paddy_m wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What made display postscript so great? I have only seen it mentioned in frothy marketing terms, not an in depth discussion of its approach, why it worked well, and how that compares to other alternatives.

PostScript is great for user interfaces! I've written lots and lots of user interfaces in PostScript. Just not Display PostScript. NeWS was a lot better for making interactive user interfaces than Display PostScript, and it came out a lot earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS The Story of Sun Microsystems PizzaTool (entirely written in PostScript): https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-story-of-sun-microsystems-...…

Is there any place where one could look up screenshots of this? I'd want to see what is capable with this technology

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#147

Post by bonki »

mrheosuper wrote: post #20
bonki wrote: post #2

I have only skimmed the text but regarding GUIs specifically the list in the end is spot on. With that being said, I firmly believe that all software (given that one is not already deeply familiar with the domain) is/can/should be written three times to end up with a good product: 1. Minimal prototype. You throw something together fast to see it can be done, taking shortcuts and leaving out features which you know yo…

from the PM perspective, it makes little sense to transform from 2 to 3. Those devs had spent weeks/months for this app, now they want to throw it all away ?, that means throwing money through windows. Also, the risk that the new app may not work like before, or missing deadline, etc. A safe bet would be reiterating (2)

I explained in another comment why it isn't throwing money out of the window. In my experience, it often costs a lot more money in the long run to not do it. The underlying problem is that most companies don't really think mid- or long-term and are happy with chasing fast money and eventually throwing it all away anyway because the product isn't competitive anymore and/or maintenance becomes too expensive. These are problems which definitely can be mitigated, but it requires a good team.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#148

Post by bonki »

0xCE0 wrote: post #34

The article is poorly written. No clear message, topics jumped weirdly, and the overall style is like written by teenager/intern trying to be as impressing as some professional. But here's the thing with "GUIs/UIs/UXs whatever": The best UI/UX is created by a domain professional, who knows why and how it serves as the best designed tool for that domain - a tool made by a professional for himself and/or for other prof…

I agree wirh your general statement but I don't agree about DAWs specifically. Many DAWs (used to) have terrible UX.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#149

Post by bonki »

masfoobar wrote: post #63

I have worked for a number of different software companies over the years. For most of them, there were no dedicated frontend or UX designers. It is mostly backend devs who had enough/decent skills at frontend, whether it be GUI apps or Web apps. However, when you are doing something specific for customers (not staff) - the design is important to get right early. However, even at a number of places I have worked, the…

That is 100% my experience as well.

Re: GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

#150

Post by throwaway2037 »

lupire wrote: post #92
throwaway2037 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference? Fresh grads are much cheaper than experienced PMs. I always say: Don't hire PMs; hire better devs (who, when necessary, can wear the hat of a PM). To be clear: My example is specifically talking about internal software development, and I have seen this strategy work at multiple companies. Creating an external product for B2B or B2C is very different.

Devs are expensive, and devs who can PM are incredibly expensive.

You are missing the point: What generates higher ROI: (1) dev + PM (separate people) or (2) highly skilled dev who can periodically act as PM? In my experience, it is always (2). Any time that I hear a senior manager complaining about "expensive devs", I always ask them: "How do you balance cost and quality?" Most of them are stunned by this question and give a bullshit answer. The truth: Almost all orgs are better to hire far fewer devs who are very high quality, versus many devs who are lower quality. I never worked for Amazon AWS but the "pizza-sized" team thing is real -- from experience.
Post reply on HN