Related
I'm new to developing on the Mac and am looking to implement an interface similar to Spotlight's - the main part which seems to be an expanding table/grid view.
I was wondering if there is a component Apple provides for creating something like this or is available open source else where.
Of course if not I'll just try and work something out myself but it's always worth checking!
Thanks for your help in advance.
New Answer (December, 2015)
These days I'd go with a vertical stack view ( NSStackView ).
You can use its hiding priorities to guarantee the number of results you show will fit (it'll hide those it can't). Note, it doesn't reuse views like a table view reuses cell views, so it's only appropriate for a limited number of "results" in your case, especially since it doesn't make sense to add a bunch of subviews that'll never appear. I'd go so far as to say outright you shouldn't use it for lists of things you intend to scroll (in this case, go with a table view).
The priority setting can be used to make sure your assumption of what should be "enough" results doesn't cause ugly layout issues by letting the stack view "sacrifice" the last few.
You can even emulate Spotlight's "Spotlight Preferences" entry (or a "show all" option) by adding it last and setting its priority to required (1000) so it always stays put even if result entries above it are hidden due to lack of space.
Lately all my UI designs for 10.11 (and beyond) have been making heavy use of them. I keep finding new ways to simplify my layouts with them. Given how lightweight they are, they should be your go-to solution first unless you need something more complex (Apple engineers stated in WWDC videos they're intended to be used in this way).
Old 2011 Answer
This is private Apple API. I don't know of any open-source initiatives that mimic it off-hand.
Were I trying to do it, I might use an NSTableView with no enclosing scroll view, no headers, two columns, right-justified lighter-colored text in the left column, the easily-googled image/text cell in the right column, with vertical grid lines turned on. The container view would observe the table view for frame changes and resize/reposition accordingly.
Adding: It might be a good idea also to see if the right/left justified text (or even the position of the columns) is different in languages with different sweep paths. Example: Arabic and Hebrew are read right-to-left. Better to adapt than to say "who cares" (he says flippantly while knowing full well his own apps have problems with this sort of thing :-)). You can test this by making sure such languages are installed on your computer, then switching between them and testing out Spotlight. Changing languages shouldn't pose an issue since the language switching UI doesn't rely on reading a foreign language. :-)
I was wondering if, whenever I have a situation in which I have to hide some UI element temporarily, it is sufficient to hide it (many frameworks give this option) or I should delete the object in memory and recreate it later when needed again (with the same parameters).
What are the pros and cons of each solution? I was thinking that maybe by hiding the element you save state informations that may be important, and you also save the allocation time, so maybe it is the better way for elements that must be hidden for a short period of time. But what if the time becomes bigger? I would then have a non-needed object in memory for the whole time.
One example, to give a clear picture of what I am talking about, would be a toolbar that changes buttons based on some context change. That is, normally there are some buttons attached to the toolbar, but when the user select one action in some other part of the interface, those buttons must be replaced by new ones (one of which is the "Done" button). Similarly, when the user selects the "Done" button in the toolbar, it goes back to the initial state.
I don't know if this is a stupid question and maybe it could be that I'm doing something like premature optimization... but I will be thankful for all your answers.
I think that the general rule of the thumb is that elements that you plan to reshow, should be hidden; otherwise destroyed (some exceptions obviously apply). When/if this becomes infeasible, you could consider further optimizations.
It's a very good question. Here's what occurs to me:
Suppose (just for the sake of argument) you have lots of different forms that could be displayed in the same space. Then if you create/destroy controls, you are only paying at any one time for the controls that the user can see. On the other hand, if you hide/show controls, you are paying all the time for the large number of controls the user isn't looking at (and may never look at). So I always create/destroy. (Actually I keep previously used controls in pools so I'm not actually re-creating them.)
Many people store user state in the controls of the UI, but personally I hate that and I never do it. I think if some information is worth remembering it belongs in application data structure. This means of course, that the controls of the current visible form have to be "bound" or kept current with the application data structure. I just make sure I can do that no matter what.
I've had to be inventive to accomplish these in a way that simplifies application code, and as a result the method I use is not well known, which exacts another kind of price.
There is no general answer to this question. It depends on the system type, CPU and RAM restrictions, the number of UI elements in question, how frequently the UI is going to be shown / recreated, etc. Perhaps if you could give an example we might be able to give you more concise feedback.
Javascript objects are not like Windows (GDI) objects: they usually don't have a will to send/receive messages - almost passive. It takes less code to hide, right?
Perhaps it depends on total amount of interactive objects per user session.
I have a Cocoa application managing a collection of objects. The collection is presented in an NSCollectionView, with a "new object" button nearby so users can add to the collection. Of course, I know that having a "delete object" button next to that button would be dangerous, because people might accidentally knock it when they mean to create something. I don't like having "are you sure you want to..." dialogues, so I dispensed with the "delete object". There's a menu item under Edit for removing an object, and you can hit Cmd-backspace to do the same. The app supports undoing delete actions.
Now I'm getting support emails ranging from "does it have to be so hard to delete things" to "why can't I delete objects?". That suggests I've made it a bit too hard, so what's the happy middle ground? I see applications from Apple that do it my way, or with the add/remove buttons next to each other, but I hate that latter option. Is there another good (and preferably common) convention for delete controls? I thought about an action menu but I don't think I have any other actions that would go in it, rendering the menu a bit thin.
Update I should also point out that delete should be an infrequent option - the app is in beta so users are trying out everything. This is a music practise journal, so creating new things to practise happens every so often (and is definitely needed when you start out using the app), but deleting them is not so frequent.
Drew's remark is always your first consideration. All other things being equal, I'm not a fan of making deletion as easy as creation; it's a dangerous and comparatively rarer action, and the UI should reflect that fact. However, not having an explicit delete control can indeed lead to support enquiries (the same happened in MoneyWell after the minus buttons were removed). The issue is that you won't hear from the people who avoided accidental deletion by hitting a too-close-to-the-plus deletion control; those people are happy and quiet. You will, however, hear from those who can't immediately find a button to click for deletion, even though almost all of Apple's applications have no such control.
If you feel that you need explicit UI for deletion, I think you can find a middle ground. The problem with deletion controls is accidental triggering, and the conventional "solution" to that problem is a confirmation alert. The problem with that is how intrusive and jarring they are, because they're modal. iPhone OS can teach us a lesson here: you can make confirmation entirely contextual and non-modal.
Examples are row-deletion (swipe to put the row into its "are you really sure you want to delete?" state, which visually tends to slide a red Delete button into view), then interact again (by tapping Delete) to actually confirm the action. There's a similar model on the App Store whereby tapping the price button changes it into a Purchase button; it's essentially an inline, non-modal confirmation. The benefit is that if you tap anywhere else (or perhaps wait a while), the control returns to its normal state on its own - you don't need to explicitly dismiss it before continuing work.
Perhaps that sort of approach (non-modal change as a sort of inline confirmation) can get rid of the support queries by making deletion controls explicit, but also patch up some of your reasonable concerns about intrusive confirmation.
I would say this depends on how important deletion is to the particular task. Is it something that the user has to do often, or very rarely. If it is rare, delete should just be left as an Edit menu option, and perhaps as backspace (Why cmd-backspace? If you can just have backspace, you probably won't get as many queries.)
As with everything in interface design, my take is to apply an 80-20 rule. If something belongs to the 20% of most used functionality, it should be exposed directly in the interface. If it is in the other 80%, you can hide it deeper (eg in a menu, action menu etc).
A + button is definitely in the top 20% --- you can't do anything without it --- whereas a delete is usually not a common operation, and is destructive, so can probably better be hidden away a bit.
The usual solution to this problem is to put the [+] and [-] buttons next to each other (see, for example, the Network pane in System Preferences). I generally find those buttons large enough that I don't hit the wrong one by mistake, although I can see that potentially being a problem.
If that option doesn't suit you, maybe take inspiration from Safari: put an 'x' inside the selected (or hovered) item.
Since your app supports undoing of deletion, I would suggest that you err on the side of making deleting stuff easy (at the expense of making it too easy) and make it obvious that these mistakes are easily undo-able. GMail does a decent job of that.
HTH.
How frequently is delete needed? Does the data and the user's expectation encourage deleting this data often? (is it a list of tasks, for example)? If so i'd certainly include a contextual action menu, even if Delete was the only option.
Cmd + Backspace may be a little unusual for people too - I know it's used in other places on OSX, but those places also provide context menus to expose the delete - i'd be surprised is every user knows about Cmd + Backspace, so i'd probably change it to Backspace (you do have undo support, so you're covered there).
Finally, and hopefully I don't sound like a git, but it suggests that the built-in help doesn't offer enough guidance on this - might be worth revising it?
Matt gave pretty much the same answer I was going to write.
Note that when you delete the object, you should animate it away: this provides valuable visual feedback: the animation (about 1/3 of a second is good) is long enough to catch the user’s eye, and they’ll see the object disappearing. If the object just disappeared without animating, the user would notice that something had changed instantaneously in the list, but would be less certain what it was. The animation reinforces the meaning of the delete button in the user’s mental model.
One of the window dialog of a software I'm working on looks a bit like this : (original screen-shot copied from this coding horror post, other examples available on this SO question)
The thing is that none of the options can be removed (those who can have already been), and that they must all be visible at a glance (i.e. no tabs allowed) Edit : I've added a comment explaining why tabs are not an option in my specific project.
I've tried to use colors, to add icons, but it just added to the overall feeling that someone had just dropped controls randomly using Visual Studio Form designer during a summer internship.
How can I make this dialog more user-friendly less horrifying without deleting features ?
Edit :
The GUI example I took has a lot of obvious design flaws (see those answers 1 2), but even after fixing those (which I've done on the software I'm working on), the dialog still looks pretty ugly.
Below is another example (credit). Controls are (almost) lined up correctly, appropriate controls are used, etc, but the overall result still looks terrible :
(source: judahhimango.com)
Given the constraints I think you won't have many options.
A good starting point would be to equal the alignments and control distances to increase overall symmetry with the ultimate goal to reduce visual clutter.
Examples:
The group boxes "Special" and "Running options" should have equal height.
The distances between the four buttons "Save settings" and "Exit" should be equal.
All buttons should have the same height, if possible avoid word wrapping.
Use the same height for all single-line edit boxes.
The quota label and its text field should be at the same baseline.
The distance between a group box caption and its first control should be equal (compare "Running options" to "Retrieval options")
Increase the distance between the controls in general, i.e. make the form look less dense.
Content fixes:
Use the same captions/names for the same things. For example, you use "Append to logfile" but "Overwrite Logfile
Use the same character case, sometimes it's "Only the first one", "Every Single Word" and sometimes "it is Camel-cased". Decide on one scheme and use it consequently (Sentence case and Title case are the most common)
Don't try to be cool, "Go 2 background" doesn't look very professional.
Avoid controls with unreadable shortcuts or no content at all. It doesn't help if the user has to stop on every control and think: "What does this thing do?"
Some more radical/controversal changes:
Try making the group boxes more symmetric, possibly be re-positioning them and use the same height. If necessary use two columns of checkboxes, that would still look better than uneven group boxes.
Unless it's absolutly necessary, remove the horizontal scroll bars from the two multiline edit boxes
Get rid of the "Clear" buttons. For the list box on the buttom left you have to provide some other way to delete items, perhaps make this into a multine text box, too.
Try replacing the checkbox collection with a checkable list box or a property grid.
A rule of thumb:
Imagine the lines of the bounding box of each control lengthed until it reaches the form boundary. The less different lines reach the boundary, the better. (Because correctly aligned controls produce more incident (-> less unique visible) lines)
On the use of colors and icons:
Simply adding icons and colors doesn't solve the fundamental problems such forms have. They all suffer from being overloaded with controls and adding even more only worsens the problem, because they just add more visual noise, but don't provide any more visual cues.
The problem with your examples, and the reason that they look cluttered is that there's not enough spacing between the elements. You think you're saving space by making things smaller, and putting them closer together, but it's a false economy because your eyes have to work harder to differentiate elements from eachother. Think about writing a computer vision program that had to OCR those interfaces, and the challenges you'd have just figuring out which element was which, let alone what the type says.
Regardless of what your programmer efficiency instincts might say.. it's okay to put space between your elements, and hell, it's okay to even have large amounts of completely "wasted" space too.
have a look at this
There's a clear boundary between the flower and its background. The shallow depth of field of the photography gives a clear contrast, and allows you to very rapidly construct a mental sillouette.
jungle http://www.statravelbuzz.co.uk/wp-content/jungle-taranaki-new-zealand.jpg
what's going on in this image? There's too much detail, and it's all over the place.
have a look here
http://www.papress.com/thinkingwithtype/text/line_spacing.htm
(source: papress.com)
think about what the line spacing is doing to your ability to distinguish words from eachother. What's it doing to the visual sense of clutteredness?
You can see from the type example that you don't have to give up much in terms of space efficiency to see massive gains in visual appearance.
grid systems
grid systems http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kcWOOyUoL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg
thinking with type
other reccomendations:
stop stealing sheep
elements of typographic style
the design of everyday things
the humane interface
If you've already dealt with alignment and organizational aspects as much as you can, then your problem probably is the graphic design of the controls. Heavy 3-D controls in large numbers are detrimental to the aesthetics and usability of a window. Consider editing their properties to flatten and lighten the controls’ appearance, using something I call “compact presentation.” In addition to removing the ugliness and distraction of heavy borders and backgrounds, this also allows controls to be placed closer together, freeing white space for grouping them without resorting cluttering lines and frames.
It looks something like this (after also fixing alignment and redundancy along with a little re-arrangement of groups):
(source: zuschlogin.com)
If you're on WinForms, One trick I've found useful is to pack multiple-instance data in a DataGridView, and single-instance data in a PropertyGrid. Both these controls help you pack lots of information in very small space, and still give you full control over their visualization (you can add descriptions, tooltips, etc.)
The thing is that none of the options
can be removed (those who can have
already been), and that they must all
be visible at a glance (i.e. no tabs
allowed)
Sigh. I would argue that, because everything is visible at a glance, they practically become invisible in a sea of controls.
That being said, the ff (yes another list) are my suggestions:
To reduce clutter, make the overall form bigger, and all controls more widely spaced apart in all directions
Standardize the height of the controls, e.g., textboxes must all have same height, buttons all have same height, etc
Align labels with text boxes more consistently
Make the layout flow down instead: 1 column, with each group having the same width as all other groups
Set all group box names in bold to make them stand out
Put all those "wGetStart.bat" commands in a group of its own
If you really want to learn more about making it "flow", with or without getting rid of all this "visible" information, you might wanna get a copy of Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think:
Because tabs are not allowed, you can create a more grid like layout.
Adding detachable panes for related options and commands can help the user to organise them, at least. If they can be minimised/unpinned when not needed, then they can also free up valuable screen estate and unclutter the UI. See VisualStudio itself for a nice implementation.
Here's my random selection of suggestions:
make it bigger, this allows a more structured grouping by reducing the space constraint on each group
add some structure by grouping options that the user might want to combine at the same time
add meaningful headers (might require the previous item). "special", "running options", "retrieval options" don't really convey any useful information.
make sure that only options that can be combines randomly are checkboxes (for example are "no info", "all info", "some info" really completely independent options? Same for "append to logfile", "overwrite logfile").
use appropriate controls (spinner for number entry, file selection dialog for files, radio buttons for mutually exclusive items, ...)
deactivate controls that make no sense with current configuration (for example custom directory text field).
move all actions to a single place
hide the scrollbars unless they are actually needed (i.e. reduce visual clutter)
be more consistent (why is it "running options" and "retrieval options" but not "special options"?)
One thing that you may have, but is obvious for the WGET example is the use of a main menu, e.g. File, Edit, Tools, Help. And also a button bar too?
First, define a hierarchy of control blocks. Even if everything must be visible, I think that some functions are more important than others. Also, make a clear separation between functions that apply to the domain (e.g., Start wGetStart.bat) and functions that apply to the software (e.g., Save settings).
Second, organize the layout according to this hierarchy: most essential to the top and to the left.
Third, let your design breathe. Space is fundamental for defining content.
Since no one has said this yet, I will: your window isn't really all that bad. Yes, it's ugly, and yes, I would be personally embarrassed to admit that I designed an interface that looks like that.
However, this window only produces a negative reaction the first few times you look at it. Once a user has used this form a couple of times, they will stop seeing it as a random collection of controls and instead start perceiving it as an interface that lets them see every piece of information that they require at a glance and that lets them do everything they need to do with a few mouse clicks.
It's a dialog for setting a bunch of options, and it's probably perfectly functional and not a big deal at all for your users. You could put a lot of work into some weird, fancy-schmantsy replacement UI that might impress the StackOverflow code-noscenti, but we don't pay your salary.
Now, the second window - that's a piece of crap.
Without knowing both the content your application and what it currently looks like, I can only guess at the problems you are facing, but here goes.
You say that this is being used by traders. While I have never dealt with that segment of the market I have often dealt with executives who need very specific information to run their businesses and the first cut of the application almost always looked like what you have displayed.
The original solution back in the day was to build a very light custom interface for each user of the application focusing on only the information relevant to that person. More recently the move has been toward making the interface customizable by the end user.
Chances are that none of your users are using all of the information presented to them. Each of them is using only a small subset. But each user is using a different subset. Try building the software so that each user can display only the information that they will be basing their decisions on.
Aside from other much-needed changed, adding a banner (displaying the company logo or something like that) seems to improve the overall appearance of the dialog.
I know it's a pure waste of space but it seems to improve the global feeling about the window.
alt text http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3423/wget.jpg
Duplication - they might all have to be available instantly, but they could be available elsewhere as well. So you can have a keyboard accelerator, menu option, detachable panel, tabbed area ...
So this existing form could be the main, default interface (albeit improved with some of the other good design tips in other answers), but why not create an "expert" panel which can be a lot neater and try to work your users on to that, and away from this old "do everything" blotter.
I would really consider evaluating the usability goals of your project. Figure out what users want to do most frequently and most consistently with your application and default to that.
You should consider a wizard for this UI. Guide the user through a set of screens for the first use. And move many of these features as configurable options preferences.
Usability is not merely aesthetics IMHO. It is about making clear what the app is intending to do. I would refactor this app to provide shortcuts to common options patterns. If 90% of the time I am going to use a specific configuration of options why do I need to see every feature enumerated in the UI 100% of the time? It is just unnecessary clutter. Sensible defaults powerful configuration that is the goal. You don't have to sacrifice features, in a sense not making me think is a feature, perhaps the most important feature.
With respect to your specific app I would rework it with two basic screens a clean default screen and an advanced screen. Add the ability to create shortcuts to common configuration sets on the default screen. A simple button that maps to a specific configuration set and asks me for a url. And if the user needs to tweak an option present them with the advanced screen but treat it as preference configuration screen that saves the preference out to a shortcut button. If I want to use the configuration more than once let me save it as a custom bookmark or option on the defaults screen.
This is one of the things OS X does really well. There is a lot of power and customizability in OS X, "hidden features" if you will. But the OS defaults to sensible and straight forward options. Provide tools to the power users but don't clutter the system for the first time or casual user. This is not sacrificing functionality, it is effectively organizing functionality.
That is my first suggestion. But if absolutely don't want to hide options, I would make this a long scrollable vertical list organized in clear steps with explanation for each step:
Step 1: Provide URL ______________
Step 2: Configure Hosts _____________
Step 3: Configure Retrieval Options:
() option
() option
() option
() option
And so on...
At each step provide some context to the meaning of the configuration options.
The advantage to this is that you can clean up the UI aesthetically and provide useful configuration hints. I don't know what "Empty wGetStart.bat" means. I presume this empties a batch file of some sort. Provide me an explanation so that I know whether I want to click that button or not. And then let me hide explanations under a collapsible menu if I use the interface regularly.
My two cents.
This may not be appropriate, but...
Hide all the options in a stylesheet, much the way that all the paragraph formatting options are hidden in a word processor. Most of the time, the user just picks a named style. When the scary stuff is necessary, a click of an 'Advanced' button can grow the form to show all the options at a glance, to allow a few to be overridden, or to allow new named styles to be defined.
Obviously, a major advantage is that if there are a few particular configurations that are regularly used, it's trivial to switch between them and there's very little risk of accidentally setting one of the options wrong.
Another option - don't have all your options on display, use tabs or a wizard or whatever. Instead, have a text list of all options currently set (or all options in non-default states or whatever) to get the at-a-glance visibility.
These could be combined, so that your summary display says something like "like <style name>, except for ...", based on the style that's least different to the current options.
In a comment you say that a user "HAS to have all information available at once". Does that mean they have to see all the checkboxes and frames and scrollbars at once, or just the information?
For example, instead of having a multitude of checkboxes for option 1, option 2, option 3, etc, in the main GUI, only show the selected options and give the user a way to open a configuration window when they need to change something.
Instead of this:
+- Feature Set X - +
| |
| [x] option 1 |
| [x] option 2 |
| [ ] option 3 |
| [x] option 4 |
| |
+------------------+
show this:
feature set x: option 1, option 2, option 4 [configure...]
This lets the users see all the selected options without having to take up valuable real estate for all of the widgets necessary to change the values.
(apologies if the ascii art doesn't appear right -- it looks right in a fixed font :-\ )
An interesting article on this topic:
Managing UI Complexity by Brandon Walkin.
In the second example I would remove most of the arrows from the right hand side box. I would add the ability to click and drag to change the number(if your users are used to that I know several 3d packages that do it so it wouldn't be uncommon in relation to the example). You can change check boxes to buttons with backgrounds that change color or stay depressed when clicked as another option to reduce visual clutter.
In the right hand side box there are two or three separate functions mixed together that very well could get their own tab. When you are working with an object's color and texture you aren't going to be changing its size and view aspect ratio so having them right there means they are in the way. At the very list they need to be rearranged to be in some sort of logical order right now they are all over the place. Texture and color(things that effect color) should be together. Position rotation and view(things that effect shape\size) should be together.
It has already been said, but without seeing your application we can't give you a concrete answer on how to make your dialog less horrifying. If you can't post screenshots, then the best advice I can give is to hire a designer to help you work on the graphical end of your application; otherwise all you will get are general guidelines here.
Some things that might have not been discussed:
Think about the users of your applications and the systems that they run. I believe that most stock traders will have large dual monitor setups, so you can probably make your dialog larger and add space between your controls to make it look less cluttered. You should research your audience and see what they use.
Are you using the best controls for the job? In the first screenshot you posted I noticed a few controls that could be changed:
a. Under "Running Options" I see three checkbox options called All Info, No Info, Some Info. If only one can be selected at a time then maybe they could be changed into a drop down selection menu. Also under the same "Running Options" there is Append Logfile, Overwrite Logfile, which again you can convert to a drop down menu since you can select only one.
b. The two text fields where you can put in hosts, can probably be combined into one gridview with three columns. The first column is the host, the second is a checkbox for Accept, and the third is a checkbox for Reject.
By simply using different controls, we can still see everything we need but have less controls on the application.
Again, like I said above, witout seeing YOUR applications I can't really give you any specific suggestions.
Hope this helps.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
What techniques do you know\use to create user-friendly GUI ?
I can name following techniques that I find especially useful:
Non-blocking notifications (floating dialogs like in Firefox3 or Vista's pop-up messages in tray area)
Absence of "Save" button
MS OneNote as an example.
IM clients can save conversation history automatically
Integrated search
Search not only through help files but rather make UI elements searchable.
Vista made a good step toward such GUI.
Scout addin Microsoft Office was a really great idea.
Context oriented UI (Ribbon bar in MS Office 2007)
Do you implement something like listed techniques in your software?
Edit:
As Ryan P mentioned, one of the best way to create usable app is to put yourself in user's place. I totally agree with it, but what I want to see in this topic is specific techniques (like those I mentioned above) rather than general recommendations.
If you do give the user a question, don't make it a yes/no question. Take the time to make a new form and put the verbs as choices like in mac.
For example:
Would you like to save?
Yes No
Should Be:
Would you like to save?
Save Don't Save
There is a more detailed explanation here.
Check out the great book Don't make me think by Steve Krug.
It's web focused but many of the conepts can apply to anything from blenders to car dashboards.
Topics covered:
User patterns
Designing for scanning
Wise use of copy
Navigation design
Home page layout
Usability testing
He also has a blog called Advanced Common Sense
And some random UI related links:
- User Interface Design for Programmers by Joel Spolsky
- 10 Usability Nightmares You Should Be Aware Of
First Principles: Wilfred James Hansen
Know the User
Minimize Memorization
Optimize Operations
Engineer for Errors
Subsequent Expansions: Dr. Theo Mandel
Place Users in Control
Use Modes Judiciously (modeless)
Allow Users to use either the Keyboard or Mouse (flexible)
Allow Users to Change Focus (interruptible)
Display Descriptive Messages and Text (helpful)
Provide Immediate and Reversible Actions, and Feedback (forgiving)
Provide meaningful Paths and Exits (navigable)
Accommodate Users with Different Skill Levels (accessible)
Make the User Interface Transparent (facilitative)
Allow Users to Customize the Interface (preferences)
Allow Users to Directly Manipulate Interface Objects (interactive)
Reduce Users' Memory Load
Relieve Short-term Memory (remember)
Rely on Recognition, not Recall (recognition)
Provide Visual Cues (inform)
Provide Defaults, Undo, and Redo (forgiving)
Provide Interface Shortcuts (frequency)
Promote an Object-action Syntax (intuitive)
Use Real-world Metaphors (transfer)
User Progressive Disclosure (context)
Promote Visual Clarity (organize)
Make the Interface Consistent
Sustain the Context of Users’ Tasks (continuity)
Maintain Consistency within and across Products (experience)
Keep Interaction Results the Same (expectations)
Provide Aesthetic Appeal and Integrity (attitude)
Encourage Exploration (predictable)
To add to your list, aku, I would put explorability as one of my highest priorities. Basically, I want the user to feel safe trying out the features. They should never back away from using something for fear that their action might be irreversible. Most commonly, this is implemented using undo/redo commands, but other options are no doubt available e.g. automatic backups.
Also, for applications that are more process-oriented (rather than data-entry applications), I would consider implementing an interface that guide the user a bit more. Microsoft's Inductive User Interface guidelines can help here, although you need to be very careful not to overdo it, as you can easily slow the user down too much.
Finally, as with anything that includes text, make the user interface as scannable as possible. For example, if you have headings under which commands/options appear, consider putting the action word at the start, rather than a question word. The point that Maudite makes is a good example of scannability too, as the "Don't Save" button text doesn't rely on the context of the preceding paragraph.
A useful technique which I never see anyone use is to add a tooltip for a disabled UI control explaining why the control is disabled. So if there's a listbox which is disabled and it's not clear why it is disabled, I want to hover over it and it tells me why it's disabled. I want to see something like "It's disabled because two textboxes on the screen were left blank or because I didn't enter enough characters in some field or because I didn't make a certain action.".
I get into sooooo many such situations and it's frustrating. Sometimes I end up posting in the software's forum asking why a control is greyed out when a tooltip could have helped me in a second! Most of these software have help files which are useless in these kinds of scenarios.
Try to pretend you know nothing about your software and try using it. However this is not practical because you already have a certain mind set towards the app. So watch fellow developers or friends use the app and look out for the pain points and ask for feedback.
One of the classic books to help you think about design is "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman. He gives great real-world examples. For example, if you design a door well, you should never have to add labels that say "push" and "pull." If you want them to pull, put a handle; if you want them to push, put a flat plate. There's no way to do it wrong, and they don't even have to think about it.
This is a good goal: make things obvious. So obvious that it never occurs to the user to do the wrong thing. If there are four knobs on a stove, each one next to an eye, it's obvious that each knob controls the eye it's next to. If the knobs are in a straight line, all on the left side, you have to label them and the user has to stop and think. Bad design. Don't make them think.
Another principle: if the user does make a mistake, it should be very easy to undo. Google's image software, Picasa, is a good example. You can crop, recolor, and touch up your photos all you like, and if you ever change your mind - even a month later - you can undo your changes. Even if you explicitly save your changes, Picasa makes a backup. This frees up the user to play and explore, because you're not going to hurt anything.
I've found UI Patterns to be a useful reference for this sort of thing. It's arranged much like the classic GoF Design Patterns book, with each pattern description containing:
The problem the pattern solves
An example of the pattern in action
Sample use cases for the pattern
The solution to implement the pattern
Rationale for the solution
If you implement a search, make it a live search like what Locate32 and Google Suggest does now. I am so used to not pressing "Enter" at the search box now.
Well, one thing that may be obvious: don't change (even slightly) the position, color, font size, etc. of buttons, menus, links, etc. between screens if they do the same type of action.
Really good feedback is extremely important. Even simple things like making it obvious what can and cannot be clicked can be overlooked or too subtle. Feedback when something might happen in the background is great. In gmail, it's great that there's a status ribbon appearing at the top that let's you know if something is sending or loading, but it's even better that it lets you know that something has sent successfully or is still loading.
The "yellow fade" technique is something else made popular amongst the RoR crowd that accomplishes something similar. You never want the user to ask the question, "What just happened?" or "What will happen when I do this?".
Another trick that has become more popular lately that I've been using a lot is editing in place. Instead of having a view of some data with a separate "edit" screen (or skipping the view and only having an edit screen), it can often be more user friendly to have a nicely laid out view of some data and just click to edit parts of it. This technique is really only appropriate when reading the data happens more often than editing, and is not appropriate for serious data-entry.
If you are doing enterprise software, a lot of users will have small monitors at low resolution. Or if they are old they will have it at a low res so they can see giant buttons ( I have seen an 800x600 on a 24"ish monitor). I have an old 15" monitor at a low resolution (800 x 600) so i can see what the program will look likes in less than idle conditions every now and then. I know that enterprise users pretty much have to accept what they are given but if you design a winform that doesn't fit into an 800x600 screen, it's not helping anyone.
Try to think about your user's end goals first before deciding what individual tasks they would carry out when using your software. The book About Face has excellent discussions on this sort of thing and though quite long is very interesting and insightful. It's interesting to note how many of their suggestions about improving software design seem to used in google docs...
One other thing, keep your user interface as simple and clean as possible.
Here is a great DotNetRocks podcast episode where Mark Miller talks about how to create Good UI; Even though the show title is .NET rocks, this episode talks about a general rule of thumbs on how to create a UI to increase program user's productivity.
Here is an episode exerpt
Good user interface design can be done by sticking to some good rules and avoiding common mistakes. You don't need to be a latte-sippin tattoo-wearin macbook-carrying designer to create user interfaces that work.
I like to follow these 3 guidelines:
Standard - follow known standards/patterns, reuse ideas from all products you respect
Simple - keep your solutions simple and easy to change (if needed)
Elegant - use less to accomplish more
The best technique I found is to put your self in the users shoes. What would you like to see from the GUI and put that in front. This also gives you the ability to prioritize as those things should be done first then work from there.
To do this I try to find "layers of usefulness" and add / subtract from the layers until it seems clean. Basically to find the layers I make a list of all the functions the GUI needs to have, all the functions it should have, and all the functions it would be neat to have. Then I group those so that every thing has logical ordering and the groupings become the "layers". From the layers I then add the most important functionality (or what would be used for Day to Day operation) and that becomes the most prominent part, and I work things into the feature around those items.
One of the toughest things is navigation as you have so much to give the use how do you make it helpful and this is where the layers really help. It makes it easy to see how to layout menus, how other pieces interact, what pieces can be hidden, etc.
I have found the easiest way to do this is to start by see what and how your users function on a day to day basis this which will make it easier to get in their shoes (even better is to do their job for a few days). Then make some demonstrations and put them in front of users even if they are Paper Prototypes (there is a book on this process called Paper Prototyping by Carolyn Snyder). Then begin building it and put it in front of users as it is built often.
I will also recommended the book Designing Interfaces by Jenifer Tidwell published by O'Reilly
The items in the list you presented are really situation dependent - they will vary from application to application. Some applications will need a save button, some won't. Some conditions will warrant a modal dialog box, some won't.
My top rule for designing a usable interface: Follow existing UI conventions. Nothing confuses a user more than a UI that doesn't work like anything they've ever used. Lotus Notes has one of the worst user interfaces ever created, and it is almost entirely because they went against common UI conventions with just about everything that they did.
If you're questioning how you should design a certain piece of your UI, think of a few standard/well-known applications that provide similar functionality and see how they do it.
If your UI involves data entry or manipulation (typical of business apps) then I recommend affording your users the ability to act on sets of data items as much as possible. Also try to design in such a way that experienced users can interact with the UI in a very random, as opposed to sequential way (accelerator keys, hyperlinks, etc).
Sung Meister mentioned Mark Miller. You can find some of his blog posts regarding great UI on the Developer express blog. Here's a screencast of his Science of great UI presentation: part1 and part2. (both require Veoh player).
You can also find him on dnrTV: Science of great user experience: part1 and part2.
Here's a google techtalks about user experience by Jen Fitzpatrick.
Cheers
When using a dropdown, the default dropdown height is usually too low (default is 8 items for winforms, for example).
Increasing it will either save the user a click if the number of items is low or make it easier to search the dropdown if there are a lot of items.
In fact, I see little point in not using all the available space !
This is so obvious to me now, but for example, it seems even VisualStudio designers haven't figured it out (btw, if you manually increase Intellisense's height, it will stay this way, but that's offtopic:))
I'll give one of my personal favorites: avoid dialog boxes at all costs. A truly good U I should almost never need to pop up a dialog box. Add them to your program only as a truly last resort.
For more, you might want to check out easily digestible ui tips for developers.
The Coding Horror Blog regularly gives great ideas. Just some examples:
Exploratory and incremental learning
Self-documenting user interface
Incremental search of features/Smart keyboard access
Task-oriented design (ribbon instead of menus and toolbars)
Providing undo instead of constant confirmation
Another aspect: use scalable icons to solve the problem of multiple user screen resolutions without maintaining different resolution bitmaps.