I am trying to learn how to use BDD for our development process and I sometimes end-up writing things that implies a UI design, so for brand new development or new features, the UI does not always exists.
For example, if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
That gets me confused to know at what point in the process do we come up with a UI design ?
Keep in mind, I only have read articles about BDD and I think it would help our team a lot but still very new at this! Thx!
If you write your scenarios with a focus on the capabilities of the system, you'll be able to refactor the underlying steps within those scenarios more easily. It keeps them flexible. So I'd ask - what does clicking the column get for you? Are you selecting something? What are you going to do with the selection? Are you searching for something and sorting by a value?
I like to see scenarios which say things like:
When I look for the entry
When I go to the diary for January
When I look at the newest entries
When I look at the same T-shirt in black
These could all involve clicking on a column header, but the implementation detail doesn't matter. It's the capability of the system.
Beneath these high-level scenarios and steps I like to create a screen or page with the smaller steps like clicking buttons in it. This makes it easy to refactor.
I wrote this in a DSL rather than English, but it works with the same idea - you can't tell from the steps whether it's a GUI or a web page, and some of the steps involve multiple UI actions:
http://code.google.com/p/wipflash/source/browse/Example.PetShop.Scenarios/PetRegistrationAndPurchase.cs
Hope you find it interesting and maybe it helps. Good luck!
I guess you can write around that by saying "when I sort the information by X, then..." But then you would have to adjust your scenario to remove any mention of the data being displayed in a grid format, which could lead to some rather obtuse writing.
I think it's a good idea to start with UI design as soon as you possibly can. In the case you mentioned above, I think it would be perfectly valid to augment the user story with sketch of the relevant UI as you would imagine it, and then refine it as you go along. A pencil sketch on a piece of paper should be fine. Or you could use a tablet and SketchBook Pro if you want something all digital.
My point is that I don't see a real reason for the UI design to be left out of user stories. You probably already know that you're going to build a Windows, WPF, or Web application. And it's safe to assume that when you want to display tabular data, you'll be using a grid. Keeping these assumptions out of the requirements obfuscates them without adding any real value.
User stories benefit from the fact, that you describe concrete interactions and once you know concrete data and behaviour of the system for it, you might as well add more information about the way you interact. This allows you to use some tools like Cucumber, which with Selenium enables you to translate a story to a test. You might go even further and e.g. for web apps capture all pages you start concrete story at and collect all interactions with that page resulting in some sort of information architecture you might use for documentation or prototyping and later UI testing.
On the other hand, this makes your stories somewhat brittle when it comes to UI changes. I think the agile way of thinking about this is same as when it comes to design changes - do not design for the future, do the simplest possible thing, in the future you might need to change it anyway.
If you stripped your user stories of all concrete things (even inputs) you will end up with use cases(at least in their simplest format, depends on how you write your stories). Use cases are in this respect not brittle at all, they specify only goals. This makes them resistant to change, but its harder to transfer information automatically using tools.
As for the process, RUP/UP derives UI from use cases, but I think agile is in its nature incremental (I will not say iterative, this would exclude agile methods like FDD and Kanban). This means, as you implement new story, you add to your UI what is necessary. This only makes adding UI specifics in stories more reasonable. The problem is, that this is not a very good way to create UI or more generally UX(user experience). This is exactly what one might call a weakpoint of agile. The Agile manifesto concentrates on functional software, but that is it. There are as far as I know no agile techniques for designing UI or UX.
I think you just need to step back a bit.
BAD: When I click the column header, the rows get sorted by the column I clicked.
GOOD: Then I sort the rows by name, or sometimes by ZIP code if the name is very common, like "Smith".
A user story / workflow is a sequence of what the user wants to achieve, not a sequence of actions how he achieves that. You are collecting the What's so you can determine the best How's for all users and use cases.
Looking at a singular aspect of your post:
if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
If this came from a user, not from you, it would show a hidden expectation that there actually is a table or grid with column headers. Even coming from you it's not entirely without value, as you might be a user, too. It might be short-sighted, thinking of a grid just because it comes from an SQL query, or it might be spot-on because it's the presentation you expect the data in. A creative UI isnÄt a bad thing as such, but ignoring user expectations is.
Related
My boss believes that wizards make things simple for the user.
I think they have their place but I can't really define what that place is.
I feel there is a danger in turning something into steps that doesn't need them.
Does anyone know where I could find rules for such things, or even a guideline to follow that describes when and when not to use wizards and possibly even other UI elements.
Here is what some common Human Interface Guidelines have to say about when to use them. Most are quite restrictive:
Gnome HIG
An assistant is a secondary window that guides the user through an operation by breaking it into sequential steps. Assistants are useful for making complex operations less intimidating, as they restrict the information visible to the user at any given moment.
[...]
Assistants do have major downsides. After using an assistant it is often hard to figure out where the individual settings aggregated into the assistant are stored. Often people will resort to re-running the assistant, re-entering many settings that they don't want to change.
Assistants are often used in situations where a better solution would be to simplify, or even better automate, the process. Before using an assistant to step people through a complex operation, consider if the operation can be fundamentally simplified so an assistant is unnecessary.
Microsoft Windows Experience Interaction Guidelines:
Consider lightweight alternatives first, such as dialog boxes, task panes, or single pages. Wizards are a heavy UI, best used for multi-step, infrequently performed task. You don't have to use wizards—you can provide helpful information and assistance in any UI.
Apple Human Interface Guidelines
For products with complex setup procedures, a setup assistant can be helpful
(Assistants are not mentioned in any other context, as in the other HIG:s, so I assume that means that Apple think they have no place except for setup)
I'd agree with you that Wizards have their place. And that place is back in Azeroth.
No, but seriously, if the user has to input a lot of different data fields, using a Wizard to split up the data entry into several related groups might help to make things less confusing.
If the Wizard covers a process that consists of steps A, B, and C, and the input at B or C depends on the input at the previous step(s), a Wizard would probably be a good way to structure your application.
There are probably a lot of other situations in which using a Wizard would be warranted (those are just two off the top of my head), but in each case, you'd want to evaluate it and make sure that a Wizard is the absolute best option. To borrow an old saying, everything doesn't become a nail just because your boss wants you to use Wizards as a hammer. If that makes sense.
As far as best practices guidelines goes -- the use of Wizards seems to fall under UX rather than UI, but here's a few items that I came across:
Wizard-style forms best practices
Designing Effective Wizards: A Multidisciplinary Approach (Book)
Best Practice: Designing Wizards
Try reading this.
I would suggest to avoid wizards as much as possible. People have a short attention span and you risk that, at the middle of it, they start forgetting what the said, what they are doing there, etc.
That being said, i think that it may be viable when performing some shopping (e.g., checkout), first-time configurations, others?
When to Develop a Wizard
Always try to:
Only ask the information really needed
Simplify as much as you can, thus avoiding the need to additional explanation
When creating a wizard:
Clearly show the how many steps are needed and how many are completed
Allow the user to revert or cancel it
I definitely appreciate a good interface and as a developer, I try to create them for my users. But appreciating a good interface and designing one are a different thing. I'm looking for good interfaces (such as IMHO StackOverflow, Gmail) as examples of good UI from which I can model my own UI's.
I personally think that Netflix has an excellent web UI. Responsive, easy to navigate. Not mutch CRUD going on, but I find it very comfortable.
Pretty much anything by google, really. They're all very simple and to the point, focusing on usability.
You should get yourself a copy of both Don't Make Me Think and The Non-Designer's Design Book for your base knowledge/insight.
From there, it's much easier for you to dissect and analyze the layouts you already know and like, and recreate them for your own amusement.
edit: To mitigate misunderstanding, the point I'm trying to make is that you probably don't need as many good examples of nice layouts, if you know what to look for. For example, I can be shown a thousand haute couture dresses, and I still couldn't make one myself, because I don't know what to look for.
My favorites
Stack Overflow: This is a WIKI so it's not a rep point grab. I just really love the interface on this site. Been to too many crappy Q/A sites
Google Reader
MSDN: It's gotten a ton better in recent years and is a great way to grab little esoteric details about various APIs
iStockPhoto.com it's simple, effective and handles a large amount of information and data without getting bogged down. It also doesn't get in the way of the info you are looking for.
A good user interface fulfills a specific need of its users effectively.
As an example, here is a site (translation) that I have created for finding out what food is available in the cafeterias of the University of Helsinki. The typical use case is that when a student is hungry, he needs to know what food is available in the neighborhood student cafeterias (which are cheap for students), so that he can choose where to eat and what. He knows where each of those cafeterias is, but does not know what food they have today.
That site shows all the needed information at once. Because the students typically have a couple of cafeterias where they go, they can either bookmark the page with those cafeterias selected, or save the selection as a cookie. After that they can reach their goal without any navigation on the web site.
I don't use it on a day-to-day basis, but I'm very impressed with the Perseus Project digital library.
Here's a link to a poem from Catullus' Carmina in Latin as an example of the interface. Some features that I really like:
Click on the bar near the top to jump to any poem in the work. Larger chunks of the bar represent larger sections of the work (poems, chapters, however that particular work is logically broken up by the author).
Click on a Latin word in the poem to bring up a window (be patient; it seems to take a while) with lexicon entries, user voting and statistics on the word form (i.e. what the inflection means in the context of the sentence; it can be ambiguous in Latin) and so forth.
There are a number of resources down the right column, including various English translations, notes, references, etc. Any of them can be either shown in the right column, or swapped out with whatever is in the main content area in the center.
One of my personal favs: newspond.com
I've read a statement somewhere that generating UI automatically from DB layout (or business objects, or whatever other business layer) is a bad idea. I can also imagine a few good challenges that one would have to face in order to make something like this.
However I have not seen (nor could find) any examples of people attempting it. Thus I'm wondering - is it really that bad? It's definately not easy, but can it be done with any measure success? What are the major obstacles? It would be great to see some examples of successes and failures.
To clarify - with "generating UI automatically" I mean that the all forms with all their controls are generated completely automatically (at runtime or compile time), based perhaps on some hints in metadata on how the data should be represented. This is in contrast to designing forms by hand (as most people do).
Added: Found this somewhat related question
Added 2: OK, it seems that one way this can get pretty fair results is if enough presentation-related metadata is available. For this approach, how much would be "enough", and would it be any less work than designing the form manually? Does it also provide greater flexibility for future changes?
We had a project which would generate the database tables/stored proc as well as the UI from business classes. It was done in .NET and we used a lot of Custom Attributes on the classes and properties to make it behave how we wanted it to. It worked great though and if you manage to follow your design you can create customizations of your software really easily. We also did have a way of putting in "custom" user controls for some very exceptional cases.
All in all it worked out well for us. Unfortunately it is a sold banking product and there is no available source.
it's ok for something tiny where all you need is a utilitarian method to get the data in.
for anything resembling a real application though, it's a terrible idea. what makes for a good UI is the humanisation factor, the bits you tweak to ensure that this machine reacts well to a person's touch.
you just can't get that when your interface is generated mechanically.... well maybe with something approaching AI. :)
edit - to clarify: UI generated from code/db is fine as a starting point, it's just a rubbish end point.
hey this is not difficult to achieve at all and its not a bad idea at all. it all depends on your project needs. a lot of software products (mind you not projects but products) depend upon this model - so they dont have to rewrite their code / ui logic for different client needs. clients can customize their ui the way they want to using a designer form in the admin system
i have used xml for preserving meta data for this sort of stuff. some of the attributes which i saved for every field were:
friendlyname (label caption)
haspredefinedvalues (yes for drop
down list / multi check box list)
multiselect (if yes then check box
list, if no then drop down list)
datatype
maxlength
required
minvalue
maxvalue
regularexpression
enabled (to show or not to show)
sortkey (order on the web form)
regarding positioning - i did not care much and simply generate table tr td tags 1 below the other - however if you want to implement this as well, you can have 1 more attribute called CssClass where you can define ui specific properties (look and feel, positioning, etc) here
UPDATE: also note a lot of ecommerce products follow this kind of dynamic ui when you want to enter product information - as their clients can be selling everything under the sun from furniture to sex toys ;-) so instead of rewriting their code for every different industry they simply let their clients enter meta data for product attributes via an admin form :-)
i would also recommend you to look at Entity-attribute-value model - it has its own pros and cons but i feel it can be used quite well with your requirements.
In my Opinion there some things you should think about:
Does the customer need a function to customize his UI?
Are there a lot of different attributes or elements?
Is the effort of creating such an "rendering engine" worth it?
Okay, i think that its pretty obvious why you should think about these. It really depends on your project if that kind of model makes sense...
If you want to create some a lot of forms that can be customized at runtime then this model could be pretty uselful. Also, if you need to do a lot of smaller tools and you use this as some kind of "engine" then this effort could be worth it because you can save a lot of time.
With that kind of "rendering engine" you could automatically add error reportings, check the values or add other things that are always build up with the same pattern. But if you have too many of this things, elements or attributes then the performance can go down rapidly.
Another things that becomes interesting in bigger projects is, that changes that have to occur in each form just have to be made in the engine, not in each form. This could save A LOT of time if there is a bug in the finished application.
In our company we use a similar model for an interface generator between cash-software (right now i cant remember the right word for it...) and our application, just that it doesnt create an UI, but an output file for one of the applications.
We use XML to define the structure and how the values need to be converted and so on..
I would say that in most cases the data is not suitable for UI generation. That's why you almost always put a a layer of logic in between to interpret the DB information to the user. Another thing is that when you generate the UI from DB you will end up displaying the inner workings of the system, something that you normally don't want to do.
But it depends on where the DB came from. If it was created to exactly reflect what the users goals of the system is. If the users mental model of what the application should help them with is stored in the DB. Then it might just work. But then you have to start at the users end. If not I suggest you don't go that way.
Can you look on your problem from application architecture perspective? I see you as another database terrorist – trying to solve all by writing stored procedures. Why having UI at all? Try do it in DB script. In effect of such approach – on what composite system you will end up? When system serves different businesses – try modularization, selectively discovered components, restrict sharing references. UI shall be replaceable, independent from business layer. When storing so much data in DB – there is hard dependency of UI – system becomes monolith. How you implement MVVM pattern in scenario when UI is generated? Designers like Blend are containing lots of features, which cannot be replaced by most futuristic UI generator – unless – your development platform is Notepad only.
There is a hybrid approach where forms and all are described in a database to ensure consistency server side, which is then compiled to ensure efficiency client side on deploy.
A real-life example is the enterprise software MS Dynamics AX.
It has a 'Data' database and a 'Model' database.
The 'Model' stores forms, classes, jobs and every artefact the application needs to run.
Deploying the new software structure used to be to dump the model database and initiate a CIL compile (CIL for common intermediate language, something used by Microsoft in .net)
This way is suitable for enterprise-wide software and can handle large customizations. But keep in mind that this approach sets a framework that should be well understood by whoever gonna maintain and customize the application later.
I did this (in PHP / MySQL) to automatically generate sections of a CMS that I was building for a client. It worked OK my main problem was that the code that generates the forms became very opaque and difficult to understand therefore difficult to reuse and modify so I did not reuse it.
Note that the tables followed strict conventions such as naming, etc. which made it possible for the UI to expect particular columns and infer information about the naming of the columns and tables. There is a need for meta information to help the UI display the data.
Generally it can work however the thing is if your UI just mirrors the database then maybe there is lots of room to improve. A good UI should do much more than mirror a database, it should be built around human interaction patterns and preferences, not around the database structure.
So basically if you want to be cheap and do a quick-and-dirty interface which mirrors your DB then go for it. The main challenge would be to find good quality code that can do this or write it yourself.
From my perspective, it was always a problem to change edit forms when a very simple change was needed in a table structure.
I always had the feeling we have to spend too much time on rewriting the CRUD forms instead of developing the useful stuff, like processing / reporting / analyzing data, giving alerts for decisions etc...
For this reason, I made long time ago a code generator. So, it become easier to re-generate the forms with a simple restriction: to keep the CSS classes names. Simply like this!
UI was always based on a very "standard" code, controlled by a custom CSS.
Whenever I needed to change database structure, so update an edit form, I had to re-generate the code and redeploy.
One disadvantage I noticed was about the changes (customizations, improvements etc.) done on the previous generated code, which are lost when you re-generate it.
But anyway, the advantage of having a lot of work done by the code-generator was great!
I initially did it for the 2000s Microsoft ASP (Active Server Pages) & Microsoft SQL Server... so, when that technology was replaced by .NET, my code-generator become obsoleted.
I made something similar for PHP but I never finished it...
Anyway, from small experiments I found that generating code ON THE FLY can be way more helpful (and this approach does not exclude the SAVED generated code): no worries about changing database etc.
So, the next step was to create something that I am very proud to show here, and I think it is one nice resolution for the issue raised in this thread.
I would start with applicable use cases: https://data-seed.tech/usecases.php.
I worked to add details on how to use, but if something is still missing please let me know here!
You can change database structure, and with no line of code you can start edit data, and more like this, you have available an API for CRUD operations.
I am still a fan of the "code-generator" approach, and I think it is just a flavor of using XML/XSLT that I used for DATA-SEED. I plan to add code-generator functionalities.
I'm not sure if this has been asked or not yet, but how much logic should you put in your UI classes?
When I started programming I used to put all my code behind events on the form which as everyone would know makes it an absolute pain in the butt to test and maintain. Overtime I have come to release how bad this practice is and have started breaking everything into classes.
Sometimes when refactoring I still have that feeling of "where should I put this stuff", but because most of the time the code I'm working on is in the UI layer, has no unit tests and will break in unimaginable places, I usually end up leaving it in the UI layer.
Are there any good rules about how much logic you put in your UI classes? What patterns should I be looking for so that I don't do this kind of thing in the future?
Just logic dealing with the UI.
Sometimes people try to put even that into the Business layer. For example, one might have in their BL:
if (totalAmount < 0)
color = "RED";
else
color = "BLACK";
And in the UI display totalAmount using color -- which is completely wrong. It should be:
if (totalAmount < 0)
isNegative = true;
else
isNegative = false;
And it should be completely up to the UI layer how totalAmount should be displayed when isNegative is true.
As little as possible...
The UI should only have logic related to presentation. My personal preference now is to have the UI/View
just raise events (with supporting data) to a PresenterClass stating that something has happened. Let the Presenter respond to the event.
have methods to render/display data to be presented
a minimal amount of client side validations to help the user get it right the first time... (preferably done in a declarative manner) screening off invalid inputs before it even reaches the presenter e.g. ensure that the text field value is within a-b range by setting the min and max properties.
http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/uiArchs.html describes the evolution of UI design. An excerpt
When people talk about self-testing
code user-interfaces quickly raise
their head as a problem. Many people
find that testing GUIs to be somewhere
between tough and impossible. This is
largely because UIs are tightly
coupled into the overall UI
environment and difficult to tease
apart and test in pieces.
But there are occasions where this is
impossible, you miss important
interactions, there are threading
issues, and the tests are too slow to
run.
As a result there's been a steady
movement to design UIs in such a way
that minimizes the behavior in objects
that are awkward to test. Michael
Feathers crisply summed up this
approach in The Humble Dialog Box.
Gerard Meszaros generalized this
notion to idea of a Humble Object -
any object that is difficult to test
should have minimal behavior. That way
if we are unable to include it in our
test suites we minimize the chances of
an undetected failure.
The pattern you are looking for may be Model-view-controller, which basically separates the DB(model) from the GUI(view) and the logic(controller). Here's Jeff Atwood's take on this. I believe one should not be fanatical about any framework, language or pattern - While heavy numerical calculations probably should not sit in the GUI, it is fine to do some basic input validation and output formatting there.
I suggest UI shouldn't include any sort of business logic. Not even the validations. They all should be at business logic level. In this way you make your BLL independent of UI. You can easily convert you windows app to web app or web services and vice versa. You may use object frameworks like Csla to achieve this.
Input validations attached to control.
Like emails,age,date validators with text boxes
James is correct. As a rule of thumb, your business logic should not make any assumption regarding presentation.
What if you plan on displaying your results on various media? One of them could be a black and white printer. "RED" would not cut it.
When I create a model or even a controller, I try to convince myself that the user interface will be a bubble bath. Believe me, that dramatically reduces the amount of HTML in my code ;)
Always put the minimum amount of logic possible in whatever layer you are working.
By that I mean, if you are adding code to the UI layer, add the least amount of logic necessary for that layer to perform it's UI (only) operations.
Not only does doing that result in a good separation of layers...it also saves you from code bloat.
I have already written a 'compatible' answer to this question here. The rule is (according to me) that there should not be any logic in the UI except the UI logic and calls for standard procedures that will manage generic/specific cases.
In our situation, we came to a point where form's code is automatically generated out of the list of controls available on a form. Depending on the kind of control (bound text, bound boolean, bound number, bound combobox, unbound label, ...), we automatically generate a set of event procedures (such as beforeUpdate and afterUpdate for text controls, onClick for labels, etc) that launch generic code located out of the form.
This code can then either do generic things (test if the field value can be updated in the beforeUpdate event, order the recordset ascending/descending in the onClick event, etc) or specific treatments based on the form's and/or the control's name (making for example some work in a afterUpdate event, such as calculating the value of a totalAmount control out of the unitPrice and quantity values).
Our system is now fully automated, and form's production relies on two tables: Tbl_Form for a list of forms available in the app, and Tbl_Control for a list of controls available in our forms
Following the referenced answer and other posts in SO, some users have asked me to develop on my ideas. As the subject is quite complex, I finally decided to open a blog to talk about this UI logic. I have already started talking about UI interface, but it might take a few days (.. weeks!) until I can specifically reach the subject you're interested in.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What is your best practical user-friendly user-interface design or principle?
Please submit those practices that you find actually makes things really useful - no matter what - if it works for your users, share it!
Summary/Collation
Principles
KISS.
Be clear and specific in what an option will achieve: for example, use verbs that indicate the action that will follow on a choice (see: Impl. 1).
Use obvious default actions appropriate to what the user needs/wants to achieve.
Fit the appearance and behavior of the UI to the environment/process/audience: stand-alone application, web-page, portable, scientific analysis, flash-game, professionals/children, ...
Reduce the learning curve of a new user.
Rather than disabling or hiding options, consider giving a helpful message where the user can have alternatives, but only where those alternatives exist. If no alternatives are available, its better to disable the option - which visually then states that the option is not available - do not hide the unavailable options, rather explain in a mouse-over popup why it is disabled.
Stay consistent and conform to practices, and placement of controls, as is implemented in widely-used successful applications.
Lead the expectations of the user and let your program behave according to those expectations.
Stick to the vocabulary and knowledge of the user and do not use programmer/implementation terminology.
Follow basic design principles: contrast (obviousness), repetition (consistency), alignment (appearance), and proximity (grouping).
Implementation
(See answer by paiNie) "Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes."
Allow/implement undo and redo.
References
Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx]
Dutch websites - "Drempelvrij" guidelines [http://www.drempelvrij.nl/richtlijnen]
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/]
Consistence [http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0385267746]
Don't make me Think [http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/0321344758/ref=pdbbssr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221726383&sr=8-1]
Be powerful and simple [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511332.aspx]
Gestalt design laws [http://www.squidoo.com/gestaltlaws]
I test my GUI against my grandma.
Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes.
It means use
instead of
Follow basic design principles
Contrast - Make things that are different look different
Repetition - Repeat the same style in a screen and for other screens
Alignment - Line screen elements up! Yes, that includes text, images, controls and labels.
Proximity - Group related elements together. A set of input fields to enter an address should be grouped together and be distinct from the group of input fields to enter credit card info. This is basic Gestalt Design Laws.
Never ask "Are you sure?". Just allow unlimited, reliable undo/redo.
Try to think about what your user wants to achieve instead of what the requirements are.
The user will enter your system and use it to achieve a goal. When you open up calc you need to make a simple fast calculation 90% of the time so that's why by default it is set to simple mode.
So don't think about what the application must do but think about the user which will be doing it, probably bored, and try to design based on what his intentions are, try to make his life easier.
If you're doing anything for the web, or any front-facing software application for that matter, you really owe it to yourself to read...
Don't make me think - Steve Krug
Breadcrumbs in webapps:
Tell -> The -> User -> Where -> She -> Is in the system
This is pretty hard to do in "dynamic" systems with multiple paths to the same data, but it often helps navigate the system.
I try to adapt to the environment.
When developing for an Windows application, I use the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines but when I'm developing an web application I use the appropriate guidelines, because I develop Dutch websites I use the "Drempelvrij" guidelines which are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The reason I do this is to reduce the learning curve of a new user.
I would recommend to get a good solid understanding of GUI design by reading the book The Design of Everyday Things. Although the main printable is a comment from Joel Spolsky: When the behavior of the application differs to what the user expects to happen then you have a problem with your graphical user interface.
The best example is, when somebody swaps around the OK and Cancel button on some web sites. The user expects the OK button to be on the left, and the Cancel button to be on the right. So in short, when the application behavior differs to what the user expects what to happen then you have a user interface design problem.
Although, the best advice, in no matter what design or design pattern you follow, is to keep the design and conventions consistent throughout the application.
Avoid asking the user to make choices whenever you can (i.e. don't create a fork with a configuration dialog!)
For every option and every message box, ask yourself: can I instead come up with some reasonable default behavior that
makes sense?
does not get in the user's way?
is easy enough to learn that it costs little to the user that I impose this on him?
I can use my Palm handheld as an example: the settings are really minimalistic, and I'm quite happy with that. The basic applications are well designed enough that I can simply use them without feeling the need for tweaking. Ok, there are some things I can't do, and in fact I sort of had to adapt myself to the tool (instead of the opposite), but in the end this really makes my life easier.
This website is another example: you can't configure anything, and yet I find it really nice to use.
Reasonable defaults can be hard to figure out, and simple usability tests can provide a lot of clues to help you with that.
Show the interface to a sample of users. Ask them to perform a typical task. Watch for their mistakes. Listen to their comments. Make changes and repeat.
The Design of Everyday Things - Donald Norman
A canon of design lore and the basis of many HCI courses at universities around the world. You won't design a great GUI in five minutes with a few comments from a web forum, but some principles will get your thinking pointed the right way.
--
MC
When constructing error messages make the error message be
the answers to these 3 questions (in that order):
What happened?
Why did it happen?
What can be done about it?
This is from "Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop
Interface" (1987, ISBN 0-201-17753-6), but it can be used
for any error message anywhere.
There is an updated version for Mac OS X.
The Microsoft page
User Interface Messages
says the same thing: "... in the case of an error message,
you should include the issue, the cause, and the user action
to correct the problem."
Also include any information that is known by the program,
not just some fixed string. E.g. for the "Why did it happen" part of the error message use "Raw spectrum file
L:\refDataForMascotParser\TripleEncoding\Q1LCMS190203_01Doub
leArg.wiff does not exist" instead of just "File does
not exist".
Contrast this with the infamous error message: "An error
happend.".
(Stolen from Joel :o) )
Don't disable/remove options - rather give a helpful message when the user click/select it.
As my data structure professor pointed today: Give instructions on how your program works to the average user. We programmers often think we're pretty logical with our programs, but the average user probably won't know what to do.
Use discreet/simple animated features to create seamless transitions from one section the the other. This helps the user to create a mental map of navigation/structure.
Use short (one word if possible) titles on the buttons that describe clearly the essence of the action.
Use semantic zooming where possible (a good example is how zooming works on Google/Bing maps, where more information is visible when you focus on an area).
Create at least two ways to navigate: Vertical and horizontal. Vertical when you navigate between different sections and horizontal when you navigate within the contents of the section or subsection.
Always keep the main options nodes of your structure visible (where the size of the screen and the type of device allows it).
When you go deep into the structure always keep a visible hint (i.e. such as in the form of a path) indicating where you are.
Hide elements when you want the user to focus on data (such as reading an article or viewing a project). - however beware of point #5 and #4.
Be Powerful and Simple
Oh, and hire a designer / learn design skills. :)
With GUIs, standards are kind of platform specific. E.g. While developing GUI in Eclipse this link provides decent guideline.
I've read most of the above and one thing that I'm not seeing mentioned:
If users are meant to use the interface ONCE, showing only what they need to use if possible is great.
If the user interface is going to be used repeatedly by the same user, but maybe not very often, disabling controls is better than hiding them: the user interface changing and hidden features not being obvious (or remembered) by an occasional user is frustrating to the user.
If the user interface is going to be used VERY REGULARLY by the same user (and there is not a lot of turnover in the job i.e. not a lot of new users coming online all the time) disabling controls is absolutely helpful and the user will become accustomed to the reasons why things happen but preventing them from using controls accidentally in improper contexts appreciated and prevents errors.
Just my opinion, but it all goes back to understanding your user profile, not just what a single user session might entail.