Related
I have been playing around with php-gtk recently and in the past I have experimented with Java to make GUI 'hello world' apps.
However both these types of applications have had a bit of a clunky (almost childish) look and feel to them. I cannot deny that they are handy for making apps for in-house use (and I totally respect the amount of community effort that goes into these projects). But I would not necessarily be proud to sell it as a commercial application with a price tag of, say, £450 or £1,000.
If I wanted to make an application that had the look and feel of, say, Firefox for Windows, or Adobe xyz, what GUI/language should I use?
Is the 'professional sheen' or smart look and feel 100% down to the designers or is it the case that, no matter how good a designer is, picking the right GUI framework is essential to get that look?
There are a few aspects to having a polished UX for a piece of software.
Using the most native framework for the platform. Win32/WPF for Windows, Cocoa for Mac etc.
Application's visual artefacts are coherent - this includes images, graphics, toolbar icons etc.
Following the platforms guidelines and best practices.
It's overlapping a bit with Igor's reply, but here's my take:
Native Control Look - UI controls today have a rather complex appearance. There are many visual cues we instinctively derive from them, and even if it's a white rectangle with some frame, with the wong shadow it looks strangely out of place. A context menu often doesn't just open today, it slides in from some direction, or fades in.
Native Control Behavior - Even more complex than UI, there's a lot of detail to behavior: different context menus depending on click position, different "hot" areas when selecting or dragging items, keyboard shortcuts, etc.
Attention to detail - There's a lot of consistent UI behavior to discover on any platform. Just the way arrow keys work in a tree control WRT selecting, opening and closing nodes.
Just look at Windows: Most non-native toolkits get the basic keyboard navigation wrong - Arrow keys, Home, End, PgUp and PgDown, behavior modified with Ctrl, extending selection with Shift gives up to 32 behaviors. Copy & Paste is traditionally with Ctrl+C/Ctrl+X/Ctrl+V and Shift+INS,Shift+DEL, and missing. Mouse double click often selects a word, mouse triple click sometimes a sentence, line or paragraph.
Response time and Muscle Memory - There are, basically, two UI operation modes:
act-look loop, where you wait for the response before deciding the next step,
playback from muscle memory, which is much faster and requires less mental processing ressources.
There are, however, two requirements for that: response must be uniform and "instant", and the next action must be registered correctly immediately (at least within 10 ms)
Often enough, with non-native toolkits, this gets hard by the response lagging behind one or two actions (the mind locks on the discrepancy), and by toolkits that take 50ms or more to show a menu, in which time a click isn't registered as intended.
A polished UI takes long to get right - A good control library can solve most of the per-control issues, but there's some final 10% taking 90% of the time, and you have control interactions. You have to try different approaches, you have to expect users with FPS-trained reflexes, you have to try all kinds of workflows.
Cross-Platform toolkits can't get it perfectly right - they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: They can opt for internal consistency independent of the platform, or being consistent with platform they currently run on. To get it right, the latter often requires platform-dependent code in the calling code, the actual thing you are trying to avoid.
Always try to use the GUI framework that's used by your desktop environment. .NET's libraries are probably the best for creating Windows apps. GTK+ is always the best on GNOME, while Qt works well on KDE - even though all three work on each other's systems, their visual appeal decreases with their lack of visual integration.
The GUI API/language used is utterly irrelevant to UI design, although some APIs make it easier or fasterto implement.
Good UI is about:
Good graphic design/artwork (visual balance and symmetry, complementary colours, visually 'pleasing' shapes and layouts, visual consistency within your app and with the other apps around it - consistent positioning, sizes, gaps, colours, etc)
Understanding the user's workflows and making what they want to do easy and intuitive. This often means implementing 3 or 4 ways of achieving the same action (e.g. "Copy and paste" can usually be achieved by: main-menu->copy/paste, context-menu->copy/paste, ctrl+c/v, button:copy/paste, drag-and-drop)
Keeping everything simple. Remove as much as possible to cut the UI back to just what the user needs and no more.
Being intuitive and not surprising the user. Controls should look like the controls the user knows, work like the controls the user knows, and be located in the places a user expects given their previous experience with the computer.
Following the conventions (position OK/Cancel buttons in the standard locations, use the OS-defined colours for highlighting selected objects etc)
To get this, you need to look at lots of "good" applications and dissect what makes them good. Get a good artist/graphic designer to draw you good icons etc. And spend a lot of time thinking about the user's workflows.
Make sure you separate the business logic from the UI - this will allow you to re-skin the app easily to improve the UI. And usually the data the program needs is not related to the way the user needs to use the application - don't be tempted to just expose your x,y,z variables in editable fields! UI is the layer that hides your implementation and makes it usable!
I don't care for the way Java application GUIs tend to look using the usual toolkits. If you like the way Firefox looks, you might look into XUL and the GUI framework shared by most Mozilla applications. Komodo Editor/IDE use the same tools (along with several other applications). GTK is very powerful, and I really doubt it is what is preventing your applications from having that professional sheen. Keep exploring it's features, and rethinking the best way to display your components, and I'm sure you'll stumble upon an arrangement that feels better.
On the other hand, it isn't all about the toolkit. Good interface design is an art, and interfaces like Firefox have evolved through endless amounts of feedback. The best thing to do is talk to users and find out what will make them more comfortable using your application. I've found that software tends to look good when it is also functional.
I would recommend spending a lot of time in software that you find pleasant to use. Make notes of the way things are done, and look for commonalities among interface elements. Most software sticks to a pretty common set of principles that make using the software easier, and the more you explore the software you find appealing, the sooner patterns will start to emerge.
Good luck!
I really want to create a stunning-looking GUI desktop application that looks like, for example:
Mac OS X interface
Picasa desktop client on windows
IPhone apps
Office 2007
I've mostly been programming GUI using Qt/Swing/WinForm
and I'm tired of creating so plain looking GUI, lol.
So I was thinking about diving into stuff like:
jQuery
WPF/C#
iPhone SDK
Silverlight
Adobe Air/Flex
Just to get some ideas on how to create really cool looking UI.
Does that sound like a good list? Any developers here that could share what platform they use to create very cool looking desktop app?
On a sidenote, I really wonder what developers at Apple / Microsoft use to develop their own cool-looking software.
EDIT
A lot of responses talk about the importance of usability over "cool-looking"..
I totally agree that usability and simplicity are the most important aspects of user interface design. I've been doing GUI development for a while now (> 3 years), so that I understand.
But using cool-looking UI also improves user experience + it could make big difference on whether or not your software sells.
I mean, otherwise why would Microsoft/Apple try to make their OS UI look "cooler" everytime there's a new version? Why would websites like pragprog.com, or versionsapp.com. make their websites look like that? Basically you kill 2 birds with one stone: stunnning-looking UI + super usability (because it looks simple and intuitive).
That is what I'm striving for. And as far as I know, I cannot achieve that using Qt/Winform. Most of the books I have read just show you how to make average-looking (read: 1990's) UI. I want to learn how to create cool-looking UI. And the only place I see cool-looking UIs these days are the technology I list above. I'm not enamored with any technology; but I just want to know how things are done in other technology to see if I could apply them to the technology I'm using, or see if I could use those technology in my line of work.
An example: if I were to pick between this UI and this UI, I probably would pick the latter, if just based on looks alone.
Functionally, they are just the same UI; they both allow you to keep track of your time. They both contain buttons and textboxes, etc. But the fact that they look different, also differentiate them in terms of attractiveness.
So in all, I think the "ice on the cake" is very important. I would say it's the thing you strive for after you are certain you have a totally intuitive, usable UI.
I think that the major reason many people suck at designing interfaces is that they consider them to be graphic design. It is not. The core of creating a good user interface is a bit like creating a good API – the interface has to be conceptually consistent, hard to misuse, easy for common tasks.
Wanting to design something cool because you are “tired of plain GUI” is a perfect recipe for disaster. If for nothing else then because consistency is a crucial part of a good UI. If each application wanted to stay out of the crowd, the whole thing would be an unusable mess.
It is almost unfortunate that Mac OS X looks that good, because then people start to think you can create a good interface by animating it or sprinkling some graphics on the top of it. The graphical part, the “cool” of the design is just the icing on the cake. If you really want to design good interfaces, stay true to the environment, respect local human interface guidelines. And maybe read Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines to get a feeling where the problems are and what can be done to solve them.
I know this sounds much more boring than filling gradients in Photoshop, but it’s the only right approach to take if you really want to create a top-notch interface.
the key to a stunning graphical user interface is twofold:
it still has to be useful to the users, and that involves a lot of hard work, study, paper prototypes, user interviews, usability testing, et al.
hire a really really good graphic artist
Neither step is optional. If you -the programmer- also happen to be a really good graphic artist, that's fine - but the vast majority are not, and no amount of fancy tools and photoshop tutorials will replace the talent and training that real artists bring to the table.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but most programmers are terrible GUI designers. Myself included. It's ok to leave art to the pros. ;-)
I'm all for WPF/Silverlight, but it really about the platform that you need to support.
The real deal is your own talent, as WPF is a powerful tool, if you ain't got the talent to use it, it will look like improved winforms. (Also check out the Expression Studio from MS - which enhance what you can get out of WPF).
If you want to know more about UI you can read this books:
About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
UI development is not about technologies. In some cases console is the best solution.
We can get commercial GUI add-ons like Telerik which also supports Mono as well.
Regardless of the UI technology, you will of course be well-served to adopt a programming style where the look and logic of the app are as decoupled as possible. This allows you maximal flexibility to design and evolve the look of your application (the View) while potentially requiring very few code changes in the back-end (the Model or ViewModel).
While possible using all UI technologies, it's particularly easy to execute this in the case of WPF/Silverlight/Moonlight via the MVVM programming style, due to the succinctness of databinding (very little boilerplate "glue" code).
I work in a small and young team of developers and we have problems that we are not sure how to solve.
On previous projects every developer have been working on tasks that were based on use cases. So, upon setting the system architecture, each team member worked on user interface and business logic of tasks assigned to him.
This kind of organization gave us the problems with UI. Each developer had his own logic about how UI should look like, where buttons should be, etc etc... and even if we've had one css designer a lot of refactoring had to be done in order to make web site to look compactly.
How do you deal with this issue?
Do you split tasks based on layer, not on whole use case?
Do you use some technical solution to achieve this or is it just written standard that every developer need to follow?
Thanks
Everyone has their own style and it would be difficult and a waste of time to define a standard that would get everyone to draw the UI in a consistent manner. Instead, elect your best UI designer to do what he does best and design the UI for the whole system. Funneling all UI changes through the designer would be difficult so just let your developers "mess it up" as they implement new use cases and just have your designer clean it up before the release. It shouldn't be hard for him/her to rearrange the existing forms and bring some consistency back to the UI.
I've found this 12 Standard Screen Patterns article very useful.
A solution might be to create sketches of all screens of your application, have them reviewed by an ergonomy-expert to correct the biggest mistakes, and, only then, give them to your developpers.
This way, they would know how the screens they are developping should look like -- there will still be a couple of differences in the end, but those should not be "big differences", and should be eaiser to fix.
And this would mean not each developper has to imagine what the perfect screen would look like : each one of those would be coherent with the others.
Adopt the tried and tested MVC system, let the view be decoupled from the business logic. Then ask a UI designer to produce sketches and work to that. UI's are something best done top-down from my experience. The user gets an overall view before being presented with all the details, defining and capturing this hierarchy makes good UI's. Coding of business logic is done as you mentioned on a use-case basis, mostly bottom-up and this is where the code falls out of sync with the UI.
Designate one person (preferably someone with graphic design experience, even if they're not really a programmer) and give them the authority to make cosmetic changes to all forms, pages and controls at any time, and have them be responsible for the overall look and feel of the application.
As far as metrics go, keep track of how much time this one person has to spend "fixing" each programmer's work, and make sure the programmers are aware of these numbers. The idea is to encourage them to make their stuff look like it should from the beginning, but also not to do weird things based on what they think stuff should look like. I've had to spend more time undoing my coworkers' bizarre design choices than anything else.
Don't be afraid to have outside sources review the design work of each programmer. It's very common for programmers to 1) produce horrible-looking UIs, and 2) believe the UIs look fantastic. You should do what the Army does with boot camp: break them down completely right from the start, so that you can build them back up again the right way.
Part of the problem with creating your own written standard is that while well meaning, there could be mistakes or better ways to do things than what's been standardized. For example, where I work, the standardized cancel button does nothing when you click on it (it's been wired to Reset).
Instead, I recommend choosing existing standards, such as The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines or Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines. Even if the standard is wrong, it's rarely profitable to deviate from widely established conventions.
Then pick up some good books for the developers, such as "Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design". Good user interface design is partially a matter of good taste, and while not every developer will be interested in the subject, it's in your best interest to help them improve.
Next, empower your QA team to file bugs when the interface for one product is inconsistent with another. The developer can then either standardize or justify the deviation if he has a reason. We do this; it works pretty well.
Lastly, go over your existing products and get a consensus on how their interfaces should be unified. Bring in (and keep) a usability expert if you can. I've seen good ones do amazing work.
There really is no clear solution for how to deal with UI problems. There are however several approaches one can take to combat the problem of having things become too complicated:
Use cases are usually cross disciplinary in nature, thus the responsibility to get a use case done should be split between the people who can implement it properly. Programmer and designer type of people need to cooperate.
Everyone in the team needs to keep in mind seperation of concerns, i.e. things that can be seperated must be kept that way preferably as early as possible. There are so many ways to do this: e.g. apply MVC pattern in your project (which is a very wide way to put it). Presentation and logic should be seperate so that changes in one layer should not affect the other.
Someone needs to be responsible for the overall UI design so it is consistent throughout the application. Preferably someone who is both a graphic designer and has some insight in usability. UI design is something that needs to be planned along with the use cases and revised constantly as development goes on. Consistent UI is very important and developers need to be on board on it.
Is it worth to try to keep your GUI within the system looks ?
Every major program have their own anyways...
(visual studio, iexplorer, firefox, symantec utilities, adobe ...)
Or just the frame and dialogs should be left in the system look 'n feel range ?
update:
One easy exemple, if you want to add a close button to your tab, usually you make it against your current desktop theme. But if the user has a different theme, your close button is out of place, it doesn't fit the system look anymore.
I played with the uxtheme api, but there is nothing much you can do, and some themes i've seen are incomplete sets.
So to address this issue, the best way i see, is to do like visual studio/firefox/chrome roolup your own tab control with your theme...
I think, that unless your program becomes a very major part of the users life, you should strive to minimize "surprises" and maximimze recognizability (is that even a word?).
So, if you are making something that is used by 1.000 people for 10 minutes a day, go with system looks, and mechanisms.
If, on the other hand, you are making something that 100 people are using for 6 hours a day, I would start exploring what UI improvements and shortcuts I could cram in to make those 6 hours easier to deal with.
Notice however, that UI fixes must not come at the expense of performance. This is almost always the case in the beginning when someone thinks that simply overriding the OnPaint event in .Net will be sufficient.
Before you know it you are once again intercepting NC_PAINT and NC_BACKGROUNDERASE and all those little tricks to make it go as fast as the built-in controls.
I tend to agree with others here- especially Soraz and Smaci.
One thing I'll add, though. If you do feel that the OS L&F is too constraining, and you have good grounds for going beyond it, I'd strive to follow the priciple of "Pacing and leading" (which I'm borrowing here from an NLP context).
The idea is that you still want to capitalise as much as possible on your intended audidences familiarity with the host OS (there will be rare exceptions to this, as Smaci has already covered). So you use as much as possible of the "standard" controls and behaviours (this is the "pacing") - but extend it where necessary in ways that still "fit in" as much as possible (leading).
You've already mentioned some good examples of this principle at work - Visual Studio, even Office to some extend (Office is "special" as new UI styles that cut their teeth here often find their way back into future OS versions - or de-facto standards).
I'm bringing this up to contrast the type of apps that just "do it their way" - usually because they've been ported from another platform, or have been written to be cross-platform in GUI as well as core. Java apps often fall into this category, but they're not the only ones. It's not as bad as it used to be, but even today most pro audio apps have mongrel UIs, showing their lineage as they have been ported from one platform to another through the years. While there might be good business reasons for these examples, it remains that their UIs tend to suck and going this route should be avoided if in any way possible!
The overriding principle is still to follow the path of least surprise, and take account of your user's familiarity with the OS, and ratio of their time using your app to others on the OS.
Yes, if only because it enables the OS to use any accessability features that are built in like text-to-speech. There is nothing more annoying for someone who needs accessability features to have yet another UI that breaks all the tools they are used to.
I'd say it depends on the users, the application and the platform. The interface should be intuitive to the users, which is only the same as following system UI standards if they are appropriate for those users. For example, in the past I have been involved in developing hand held systems for dairy and bread delivery on Windows CE hand helds. The users in this case typically were not computer literate, and had a weak educational backround. The user interface focussed on ease of use through simple language and was modelled on a pre-existing paper form system. It made no attempt to follow the Windows look and feel as this would not have been appropriate.
Currently, I develop very graphical software for a user group that is typically 3rd level educated and very computer literate. The expectation here is that the software will adhere to and extend the Windows look and feel.
Software should be easy and intuitive where possible, and how to achieve this is entirely context dependent.
I'd like to reply with another question (Not really Stackoverflow protocol, but I think that, in this case, it's justified)
The question is 'Is it worth breaking the OS look and feel?'
In other words,
Do you have justification for doing so? (In order to present data in some way that's not possible within normal L&F)
What do you gain from doing so? (Improvinging usability?)
What do you lose from doing so? (Intuitiveness & familiarity?)
Don't simply do it 'To be different'
It depends on how wide you would define system look'n feel... But in general, you should keep it.
Do not surprise the user with differentiating from what he is used to. That's one of the reasons why we call him user ;-)
Firefox and Adobe products usually don't because they are targeting several plattforms which all have their own L&F. But Visual Studio keeps the typical Windows L&F. And, as long as you are developing only for Windows, so should you.
Apart from the fact that there is no well-defined look-n-feel on Windows, you should always try to follow the host platform native L&F. Note however that look-n-feel is just as much about how a program behaves as how it looks. Programs which behave in a counter-intuitive way is just as annoying as programs sporting their own ugly widgets.
Fraps is a good example (IMHO) of a program which is actually very useful, but breaks several user interface guidelines and looks really ugly.
If you're developing for Apple's Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows, the vendors supply interface guidelines which should be followed for any application to be "native".
See Are there any standards to follow in determining where to place menu items? for more information.
If you are on (or develop for) a Mac, then definitely YES!
And this should be true for Windows also.
In general, yes. But there's the occassional program that does well despite being not formatted for all the OSes it runs on. For example, emacs runs pretty much contrary to every interface guideline on OS X or Windows (and probably even gnome/KDE) and it's not going away any time soon.
I strongly recommend making your application look native.
A common mistake that developers who are porting an application to a new platform seem to make is that the new application should look-and-feel like it does on the old platform.
No, the new application should look-and-feel like all the other application that the user is used to on the new platform.
Otherwise, you get abominations like iTunes on Windows. The same UI design may be exactly right on one platform and very wrong on the next.
You will find that your users may not be able to pin-point why they dislike your application, but they just feel it hard to use.
Yes, there are valid exceptions, but they are rare (and sure enough, they tend to be the major applications like Office and Firefox, rather than the little ones). If you are unsure enough to have to ask on StackOverflow, your application isn't one of them.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This question isn't about unit-testing. And it is for a desktop product.
This is about testing of the gui and testing that the right stuff is input in the right text box at the right time.
A company I used to work at used WinRunner (different department so I don't know much more that that), but that has now been shutdown by HP but they don't seem that bothered whether you stay with HP or go elsewhere. You can't read about the product until you've signed up which is annoying.
The tool has to work with MFC (non-negotiable) and the ideal tool will also...
be automated.
be scriptable.
work with different screen resolutions automatically.
be able to 'spy' on individual static text boxes, etc.
intuitive enough so non-programmers can create the scripts.
have reporting tools, including email of individual users.
What do other SO users do for automated GUI testing?
We use the SAFS framework for Rational Robot (RRAFS). There are also SAFS implementations for WinRunner (WRAFS) and it looks like they have a new "Image-Based Testing" implementation, which I'm not familiar with.
This framework does a nice job of seperating the UI implementation from the test scripts. I've tested four releases of a web application developed by two different teams (one team using classic ASP, one using ASP.NET) and I only had to change the application map of my UI objects, the tests themselves didn't need to change.
That said, the language of the framework is cumbersome and takes getting used to. It's not very robust, in terms of language constructs, but with some effort you can do anything you need to. It's sort of like "programming" in Windows Batch language, but for tests ;)
To address your individual requirements above:
1) The tool has to work with MFC (non-negotiable).
The SAFS framework uses a 3rd party "record-playback" tool to drive the tests, like Rational Robot or Mercury WinRunner. If that tool can interact with MFC apps, then the framework can. I don't know how the "Image-Based Testing" implementation drives the tests, but I'd guess it can also work with MFC.
2) be automated.
The SAFS framework integrates with the STAF framework, which will allow you to automate the execution of your tests. I have a proof-of-concept test that uses STAF to start a VM image from a pool of images, install the application under test, run the RRAFS test, and put the results on a web server for others to get at.
3) be scriptable.
Yes, but as mentioned, it's not the most robust programming language. I wrote an Excel add-in that our testers use to write their tests that simplifies things a little bit.
4) work with different screen resolutions automatically.
Yes, since it's looking "under the covers" at the UI objects and not the screen. Except for maybe the "Image-based Testing" option...
5) be able to 'spy' on individual static text boxes, etc.
Yes, you can wait for a UI object to appear, disapper, to have a value, for a value to be changed, etc.
6) intuitive enough so non-programmers can create the scripts.
With some training. We've had limited success. Some QA folks can write the tests, some struggle.
7) have reporting tools, including email of individual users.
Yes, using the STAF framework you can post results to a web server, send out emails, etc.
Lots of good answers here, but I wanted to address this goal statement, specifically:
intuitive enough so non-programmers
can create the scripts
I can understand why you'd want this, but it's a lot harder than you might think. While you can find any number of tools out there that'll claim to make writing scripts easy, in practice, you're going to need at least some people on your automation team who understand programming. Writing scripts that are reasonably robust is going to involve one or more of looping, if/then/else, and subroutine calls. Not the kind of thing that non-programmers are going to find intuitive.
Be especially wary of the idea that you can "record" a person using a tool, then play it back for testing. That sort of "automation" is often so brittle that you'll end up modifying or re-recording the script for nearly every change in the software.
Coming from a strong Mercury/HP background, I would highly recommend using QuickTest Professional for your GUI testing. It has a lot of the same functionality as WinRunner, but without a lot of code. Simple GUI checks can be done through the QTP interface with minimal, if any, custom VB code. Checks for text next to boxes can be done with simple compares using the datasheet in QTP.
If you are used to WinRunner, and know VBScript (not so much TSL), then I would definantly look at QTP.
As far as your other requirements, QTP also has the Spy feature, like WinRunner, that will list all properties and actions you can perform on objects. And as for simplicity of use, at my old job, we would have business or system testers create simple smoke scripts, then I would take them and code them for more in-depth testing (multiple data values, error checking, etc). And as for reporting, QTP will do simple reporting of pass/fail/warning on tags that you put in, along with custom data you can input. So you could use a case statement to populate your output values based on your results. It won't do e-mail naitevly, but if you integrate with TestDirector/QualityCenter, you can setup through there, along with automating the kick-off of your scripts, and parameterizing data right from there (which is nice to send back to testers to have populate data without being involved in the script itseld).
Pat
See User Interface Testing.
Desktop or Web apps alike have the same testing pattern here (I've worked in both).
Place as little logic as possible in the UI and test everything below it. So you say, but what if I want to test that such and such happens when a button is clicked? The method that is called when that button is clicked should call out to another class that actually does the thinking.
You might say, but I'm using some static classes/methods that can only exist in my UI, wrap those with an adapter and utilize that interface in order to make your code testable.
The parts of your GUI tests that you want to automate should be automated below the UI. There are parts of your GUI that you can't automate. Checking to make sure things "look right", or testing that you can see certain elements, etc. All of that is what your humans should be doing. Ensuring that events are properly firing, and that values are being appropriately returned from your business objects, that's all unit tests.
I can see from your question that you've already pretty much decided you need an automated GUI tester, but that's not the right tool for this job. If you decide to use that you're trying to find the best way of doing the wrong thing.
If you think that this isn't about unit testing because you're testing GUI interactions, then I can guarantee you're not unit testing close enough to your UI. If you were, you'd feel like most of what you'd be testing was redundant.
If you disagree with me, please post some reasons and we'll hash this out.
There are a lot more (open source) alternatives if you are testing a web product. For a desktop product, some popular general purpose desktop GUI automation tools below (in no particular order). I've worked with all of these personally, and they all get the job done. If you choose to go with a vendor tool, get POCs for the ones you are considering, and make the decision based on what tool is the best fit for the company in general. One tool may be a better fit for a particular application, but there may be other projects/applications to consider.
QuickTest Pro (HP's successor to WinRunner)
Rational Functional Tester (IBM's successor to Robot)
TestPartner