Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In my experience, UI programming is very time consuming, expensive (designers, graphics, etc) and error prone - and by definition UI bugs or glitches are very visible embarasing.
What do you do to mitigate this problem?
Do you know of a solution that can automatically convert an API to a user interface (preferably a Web user interface?).
Probably something like a JMX console
with good defaults
can be tweaked with css
where fields can be configured to be radio button or drop down list, text field or text area, etc
localizable
etc
Developing UI is time consuming and error-prone because it involves design. Not just visual or sound design, but more importantly interaction design. A good API is always interaction model neutral, meaning it puts minimal constraints on actual workflow, localisation and info representation. The main driver behind this is encapsulation and code re-use.
As a result it is impossible to extract enough information from API alone to construct a good user interface tailored to a specific case of API use.
However there are UI generators that normally produce CRUD screens based on a given API. Needless to say that such generated UI's are not very well-suited for frequent users with demands for higher UI efficiency, nor are they particularly easy to learn in case of a larger system since they don't really communicate system image or interaction sequence well.
It takes a lot of effort to create a good UI because it needs to be designed according to specific user needs and not because of some mundane API-UI conversion task that can be fully automated.
To speed the process of building UI up and mitigate risks it is possible to suggest either involving UI professionals or learning more about the job yourself. Unfortunatelly, there is no shortcut or magic wand, so to speak that will produce a quality UI based entirely and only on an API without lots of additional info and analysis.
Please also see an excellent question: "Why is good UI design so hard for some developers?" that has some very insightful and valuable answers, specifically:
Shameless plug for my own answer.
Great answer by Karl Fast.
I don't believe UI programming is more time consuming than any other sort of programming, nor is it more error prone. However, bugs in the UI are often more obvious. Spotting an error in a compiler is often much more tricky.
One clear difference between UI programming is that you have a person at the other end, instead of another program, which is very often the case when you're writing compilers, protocol parsers, debuggers, and other code which talks to other programs and computers. This means that the entity you're communicating with is not well-specified and may behave very erratically.
EDIT: "unpredictable" is probably a more appropriate term. /Jesper
Your question of converting an API to a user interface just doesn't make sense to me. What are you talking about?
Looks like you are looking for the 'Naked Objects' Architectual pattern. There are various implementations available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects
I'm not providing a solution, but I'll attempt to answer the why.
So I don't speak for everyone, but for me at least, I believe one reason is because programmers tend to concentrate on functionality more so than usability and they tend not to be too artistic. I think they just tend to have a different type of creativity. I find that it takes me a long to time to create the right graphics, compared to how long it takes me to write the code (Though, for the most part, I haven't done any projects with too many graphical requirements).
Automatically generating user interfaces may be possible to some extent, in that it can generate controls for the required input and output of data. But UI design is much more involved than simply putting the required controls onto a screen. In order to create a usable, user friendly UI, knowledge from disciplines such as graphics design, ergonomics, psychology, etc. has to be combined. There is a reason that human-computer interaction is becoming a discipline of its own: its not trivial to create a decent UI.
So I don't think there's a real solution to your problem. UI design is a complex task that simply takes time to do properly. The only area where it is relatively easy to win some time is with the tooling: if you have powerful tools to implement the design of the user interface, you don't have to hand-code every pixel of the UI yourself.
You are absolutely correct when you say that UI is time consuming, costly and error prone!
A great compromise I have found is as follows...
I realized that a lot of data (if not most) can be presented using a simple table (such as a JTable), rather than continuously try to create custom panels and fancy GUI's. It doesn't seem obvious at first, but it's quite decent, usable and visually appealing.
Why is it so fast? Because I was able to create a reusable framework which can accept a collection of concrete models and with little to no effort can render all these models within the table. So much code-reuse, its unbelievable.
By adding a toolbar above the window, my framework can add to, remove from or edit entries in the table. Using the full power of JTables, I can hide (by filtering) and sort as needed by extending various classes (but only if/when this is required).
I find myself reusing a heck of a lot of code every time I want to display and manage new models. I make extensive use of icons (per column, rows or cells, etc) to beautify the screens. I use large icons as a window header to make each screen 'appear' different and appealing and it always looks like new and different screens, but its always the same code behind them.
A lot of work and effort was required at first to do the framework, but now its paying off big time.
I can write the GUI for an entirely new application with as many as 30 to 50 different models, consisting of as many screens in a fraction of the time it would take me using the 'custom UI method'.
I would recommend you evaluate and explore this approach!
if you already know or could learn to use Ruby on Rails, ActiveScaffold is excellent for this.
One reason is that we don't have a well-developed pattern for UTDD - User Test Driven Development. Nor have I seen many good examples of mapping User Stories to Unit Tests. Why, for example, do so few tutorials discuss User Stories?
ASP.NET Dynamic Data is something that you should investigate. It meets most, if not all your requirements
It's hard because most users/customers are dumb and can't think straight! :)
It's time consuming because UI devs/designers are so obsessive-compulsive! :)
Related
I am working on designing a user interface and want to convey my design to my peers. Typically, I'd use a mock-up of the UI and UML, but given the complexity, size, and multiple asynchronous interactions I'm not sure that this makes the most sense. It doesn't seem to allow to efficiently describe the process.
Does anyone have experience in designing large User Interface's? How would a company that designs UI's go about modeling their process/ design? This seems to be a question for the 'front-end' engineers.
well let's go for an answer even if your question is very large. I'll give you my experience and hope it will help you to decide.
To my mind, using UML in a project is very useful if you use it right, it's often clear, quite easy to understand. On the other side, when working on huge project, it's sometimes costly because it takes time to create your diagrams and nowadays, you have to be as fast as possible !
These last months I have worked on a project with a GUI and to well define it, I have first draw some screen on paper and quickly ask for some drawbacks near the coffee machine.
I have created some activity diagrams and then, created a mock-up.
How to choose now ?
First of all, if your GUI should have a beautiful design, I don't think you can avoid a mock-up, but I'm don't know if it's your goal.
My main tip would be, try to simplify your complexity in your program. If you have multiple asynchronous that could arise everytime/everywhere, you'll encounter a lot a problem.
In my project, let's say my tablet could be preempted by an external computer whenever/wherever. I just have created a class beforehand to manage this asynchronous call but my sub-activity-diagrams stayed intact.
Draw specific diagram for specific functionalities and leave useless diagrams which are not relevant/too simple.
Hard to explain you more than this without giving you any example. Hope it will help a bit.
I'm searching for sources and further information on a particular concept in user experience design. It's not a particularly complicated concept, just that when designing user interfaces, you should both make it intuitive and simple for new users, but also provide way for users to become more efficient as they become more familiar with the application.
An example could be including a prominent button for a common action for new users, but also providing a keyboard shortcut / mnemonic for expert users. However, that's just an example, another example could be providing full functionality through a GUI, but allow expert users to script the same actions. The point is it's more difficult to learn, but it makes them more efficient.
I'm pretty sure there's a name for that which I can't recall, and I'm having trouble searching for sources and references on it.
Name of the concept of designing an interface to allow expert users to become more efficient?
Accelerators?
Flexibility and efficiency of use:
Accelerators -- unseen by the novice
user -- may often speed up the
interaction for the expert user such
that the system can cater to both
inexperienced and experienced users.
Allow users to tailor frequent
actions.
(source: Ten Usability Heuristics by Jakob Nielsen)
Well, reading only your question "Name of the concept of designing an interface to allow expert users to become more efficient?" I'm inclined to point you toward The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems by Jef Raskin, in which there is the concept of habituation:
2-3-1 Formation of Habits
When you perform a task repeatedly, it
tends to become easier to do.
Juggling, table tennis, and playing
piano are everyday examples in my
life; they all seemed impossible when
I first attempted them. Walking is a
more widely practiced example. With
repetition, or practice, your
competence becomes habitual, and you
can do the task without having to
think about it. ...
...
... The ideal humane interface would
reduce the interface component of a
user's work to benign habituation.
Many of the problems that make
products difficult and unpleasant to
use are caused by human-machine design
that fails to take into account the
helpful and injurious properties of
habit formation. One notable example
is the tendency to provide many ways
of accomplishing the same task. Having
multiple options can shift your locus
of attention from the task to the
choice of method...
But is contrary to what you describe in your question, as evidenced by the last 2 sentences. In fact in that book there is also a sub-chapter dedicated to dispel the myth of beginner-expert dichotomy:
3-6 Myth of the Beginner-Expert Dichotomy
... This dichotomy is invalid. As a user
of a complex system, you are neither
a beginner nor an expert, and you cannot
be placed on a single continuum between
these two poles. You independently know
or do not know each feature or each related
set of features that work similarly to one
another. You may know how to use many
commands and features of a software package;
you may even work with the package professionally,
and people may seek your advice on using it.
Yet you may not know how to use or even know
about the existence of certain other commands
or even whole categories of commands in that
same package. ...
So, perhaps is not such a good term/concept that you are looking for.
Update: were you looking for the term Adaptive User Interfaces, perhaps? Well, I think that, as usually understood and implemented, it is not such a great idea (for example, disappearing menu items in Microsoft products). But my impression is that researchers use the term for something quite different.
Update: but Adaptive User Interfaces does not cover scripting.
The answer is in your question: Efficiency. It's a fundamental component of usability that Jakob Nielsen long ago defined as "Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks." A UI with expert-supporting elements like accelerators, context menus, and double-click-for-defaults is an efficient UI.
It is also correct to simply say that making things fast for experienced users is part of usability -just as usability also includes making it easy for users to accomplish basic tasks on the first encounter, and making it satisfying, and tolerating errors.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have known enough about programming to get me in trouble for about 10 years now. I have no formal education, though I've read many books on the subject for various languages. The language I am primarily focused on now would be PHP, at least for the scale of things I am doing now.
I have used some OOP classes for a while, but never took the dive into understanding the principles behind the scenes. I am still not at the level I would like to be expression-wise, but my recent reading of the book The OOP Thought Process has left me wanting to advance my programming skills.
With motivation from the new concepts, I've started a new project. I've coded some re-usable classes that deal with user auth, user profiles, database interfacing, and some other stuff I use regularly on most projects.
Now having split my typical garbled spaghetti-bowl mess of code into somewhat organized files, I've been having some problems when it comes to making sure files are all included when they need to be, how to logically divide the scripts up into classes, and how segmented I should be making each class.
What I'm really asking for is advice or suggested reading that focuses not on specific functions and formats of code, but on the logical layout of projects that are larger than just a hobby project.
I want to learn how to do things properly, and while I am still learning in some areas, this is something that I have no clue about other than just being creative, and trial/error. Mostly error.
Thanks for any replies. This place is great.
I will try to express my experience from previous projects here, maybe they help you.
If you try to segment your project, try to find components that might be useful as themselves. If you write e.g. a database layer, think about what to do to make the database layer independent from the rest of your application (except utility classes and configuration). If you write a RichClient that accesses the database layer, try to put exactly the stuff you need in it which you would also need when accessing it from a Web layer. Now you have a component that would maybe even useful in a command line client.
Or if you want to see this from a lower level, split your application into small units, and don't let these units have circular dependencies!!! If two components have circular dependencies, they cannot be splitted and should really be a single component. I know, I broke this rule some times because you cannot hold it up always, but it is a good rule to get understanding of the building blocks of your app.
Another popular dividing rule of an application is the Model-View-Control Pattern (MVC), which states that the Model (the data classes), the Control (the logic of your program) and the View (The graphical user interface) should be splittet into distinct packages. While I adhere to this, I would divide my code like this. Within each package I have distinct model, view and control classes, but the model classes don't know anything about the control layer, and the control layer does not know anything about the GUI.
Since GUI development is always tedious, and therefore often the least tested part (at least in unit tests) of an application, splitting it from the control make writing the buisiness logic a lot easier. In fact, it lets you concentrate on what you have to do, which is getting work done, which you code in buisiness logic. If this part works, you can spend time writing a nice GUI for it. Of course will the GUI and ease of use often bring their own requirements to the control, but at least its loosely coupled.
In my current large project we have some bit components, which we now see as independent products, which get used by the really product. This makes testing and writing the independent component easier for the person in charge, and gives everyone a more stable component.
Just my 2¢.
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
I am currently working on a project where a lot of user interaction is going to take place. There is also a commercial side as people can buy certain items and services.
In my opinion a good blend of user interface, speed and security is essential for these types of websites. It is fairly easy to use ajax and JavaScript nowadays to do almost everything, as there are a lot of libraries available such as jQuery and others. But this can have some performance and incompatibility issues. This can lead to users just going to the next website.
The overall look of the website is important too. Where to place certain buttons, where to place certain types of articles such as faq and support. Where and how to display error messages so that the user sees them but are not bothering him. And an overall color scheme is important too.
The basic question is: How to create an interface that triggers a user to buy/use your services
I know psychology also plays a huge role in how users interact with your website. The color scheme for example is important. When the colors are irritating on a website you just want to click away. I have not found any articles that explain those concept.
Does anyone have any tips and/or recourses where i can get some articles that guide you in making the correct choices for your website.
Adhere to some standard UI Design Principles:
The structure principle: Your design
should organize the user interface
purposefully, in meaningful and
useful ways based on clear,
consistent models that are apparent
and recognizable to users, putting
related things together and
separating unrelated things,
differentiating dissimilar things
and making similar things resemble
one another. The structure principle
is concerned with your overall user
interface architecture.
The simplicity principle: Your
design should make simple, common
tasks simple to do, communicating
clearly and simply in the user’s own
language, and providing good
shortcuts that are meaningfully
related to longer procedures.
The visibility principle: Your
design should keep all needed
options and materials for a given
task visible without distracting the
user with extraneous or redundant
information. Good designs don’t
overwhelm users with too many
alternatives or confuse them with
unneeded information.
The feedback principle: Your design
should keep users informed of
actions or interpretations, changes
of state or condition, and errors or
exceptions that are relevant and of
interest to the user through clear,
concise, and unambiguous language
familiar to users.
The tolerance principle: Your design
should be flexible and tolerant,
reducing the cost of mistakes and
misuse by allowing undoing and
redoing, while also preventing
errors wherever possible by
tolerating varied inputs and
sequences and by interpreting all
reasonable actions reasonable.
The reuse principle: Your design
should reuse internal and external
components and behaviors,
maintaining consistency with purpose
rather than merely arbitrary
consistency, thus reducing the need
for users to rethink and remember.
Try to look for Websites or Web Application which has successfully achieved the goal you are looking to achieve, study their UI's, try to find common parameters & patterns which engages the user on their sites.
I always believe amazon is very good at keeping user engaged on website by showing relevant recommendations, what other people are looking types recommendations, people who bought this also bought this kind of recommendations.
Another good read: What should a developer know about interface design usability and user psychology
Also, Good Read on UI design considerations of e-commerce websites.
When it comes to UI design, ideally you will have an actual visual designer provide some guidance on your use of colors and a UxD provide some insight into your layout and flows based upon their expertise in these areas. Barring these folks having some input, if you design the pages and create the visuals yourself, iterative discovery is the best method to inform your design and provide insight into how these items affect the user and the overall experience you have created.
While there are certainly numerous books you can read and "guidelines" you can follow (and should for the initial design phases), no amount of book learning can replace real user interactions.
Build a functional prototype of your site/app/service/etc. and get it in front of actual users to gauge usability and value. This should be done in an ad-hoc format (versus formal usability testing) and the prototype should consist of smoke and mirrors as needed (i.e. it could be only clickable comps or primarily images with only the flows you're testing actually working).
Once you have some level of prototype, bring it to a place where ppl tend to be (and where you have i-net access if needed). I have found Starbucks to be great for this. Grab some ppl and ask if you can have 10 minutes of their time - you'll find tons of willing participants. Provide these folks with a simple / specific scenario to complete in your prototype and watch and learn.
People in a real-world situation using your software will quickly find its flaws and you'll be learning more than you could ever glean from a book or guideline. You'll be iterating on the design and tweaking items every time you test.
Test like this over a few weeks and you'll be discovering the perfect design very quickly. Once you have something that ppl can use and find value in, you're ready to get it live. But, testing should not end there - once live, you should continue to test and tweak via A/B and multi-variant testing while keeping a close eye on on your analytics and user behavior.
Discovery testing followed continual A/B allows you to continuously tweak, test and learn and ultimately to create the best solution possible.
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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
The question might seem trivial, but it's an actual problem: when you're working on a project, do you do any kind of architecture design before actually starting coding? Do you spend much time working together with a customer to get a detailed specs/usecases/mockups?
During coding, do you alter those architectural decisions made before? Do you go back to the customer with new set of specs/usecases/mockups?
I'm wondering, what's a good balance between all those non-coding actions and coding itself, from your experience?
Update:
Ok, so from the anwsers so far it seems like there are 2 approaches:
design early, then sit and code to avoid late fixes
minimize the design alone part, instead do iterative development (agile methodologies seem to prefer it that way).
I guess which way to go depends on the project, team and customer... am I right?
That which minimises the total time spent ;-)
It heavily depends on the kind of project, but generally speaking it's better to "waste" time over-designing and specifying requisites than finding out later that something was wrong and come the whole way back to fix it.
I read something about quantitative measurements of the impact of poor design decisions in "The Mythical Man-Month" or maybe in a book called something like "Software Requirements Pro Practices" from Microsoft Press, I think the time wasted in a late fix (near product delivery) was about 10x than in early stages.
If you do agile, design and coding are the same thing. In my experience it is good to pair program during the very first stage of the project...
Have a look at scrum, agile and waterfall. This is related to project management not programming per se.
Architecture also becomes easier once you have built enough applications within a domain or a platform. In PHP, if you use Joomla, Symfony or codeigniter then your scaffolding and architecture is already in place. Same for ASP.NET MVC.
My personal experience tells me that you should consider different factors. There's no silver bullet. My personal list follows, grown mostly by experience.
If you are developing something that is well known in details, the development team is sparse and with difficulty to communicate efficiently all together, the team has strong or huge dependencies towards the work of other teams, and what you are developing has a fundamental long term importance that will be difficult to change in the future (eg. file formats), go for a very long design phase, akin to a waterfall model. Also, you should spend a lot of design if you plan to develop a rather complex application, and you have to deeply consider all the possible interactions between features before coding. Coding takes very little time compared to design. Also, you should consider this if it somehow important to keep efficient record of how the application behaves from a very high level point of view, and if your team tends to be highly unstable, so that your knowledge stays on paper, rather than in people's brain.
if you have to implement something brand new and to do research on, you want feature as soon as possible, growing the application from fast feedback, you have a pool of geeks that work in the same room, are very committed to your cause, love programming and they are passionate to share and build together, go for agile methods.
if you are in between to the previous two cases, go for an iterative approach. I normally choose a 3 months schedule. When I code alone, I work agile-like, mostly because I have to cope with frequent disruption, so I add feature by feature. However, I release iterative, namely I don't plan to do an official, stable release before the third iteration. I want space to learn the field, do mistakes, and correct them before committing to maintain some stupid choice.
if you code in academia, you are screwed, because you have some of the issues in 1 without the manpower to accommodate them, and some of the issues in 2 without the easy communication required by agile methods.
roughly 50/50. whenever ive analysed my project schedules, it turns out about 50% of the time goes into design, project management, quality control, and auxiliry tasks. the remaining 50% is coding. if i dont see that 50/50 ratio, i worry.
mind you, this is using traditional waterfall model (which is more suited to custom-app development). agile methods are better for shrink-wrapped software in my opinion.
I would say it's roughly 50/50, no matter the "methodology" or project type. It only varies in how those 50% design are distributed. And that may depend on the project, but most of all it depends on the people who do the work, and how they are "wired". It's more a matter of psychology than methodology.
Some people (I'd say the more cautious characters) need a more detailed mental map before they start coding. If they don't have that map out of prior experience, they will need more "investigation" time up front.
Others yet like to just "jump in" into coding with only a rough mental map, and work out the details as they go.
Somewhere in between is to do the elaboration via spikes and prototypes, and develop the "big picture" on top of that running code. For me personally this tends to yield the best results, and the least waste. (After all, prototyping is, in a way, a test-first approach applied on solution ideas. You get an idea, test it out in a spike or prototype, then implement/integrate it with the main code base.)
My advice is: Find out the style that feels best to you personally, and stick to it. That's going to be pretty sure the style you are going to be most effective with.
Those two things are tightly coupled. Well at first stage, you are definitely will spend some time to make design decision. Then you will have to start coding and almost in all cases you will came up with some improvement decision for your previous design.
After all it will depend on delivery date and how much time you have at all and then to decide accordingly how you going to balance it. In general you make a startup design and then during coding you will update and change it. Also is a good practice to deeply involve your customer in design decision during development stage to force him be aware of it and how much of your time you will spend on each change.
The longer the period between when you write your specification and the time you start coding will increase the chance that requirements will change. So, to answer your question, as soon as possible....
If your suffering from too much requirement creep then I would suggest implementing smaller iterations of releases (if possible) and then creating new requirements/specifcation documents for each of these samller phases.
If you can't do this.... make sure you have a good change management process sin place.
My google-fu is failing drastically, but I recently read something to the effect of:
"Spend 6 months coding, 6 months designing and 6 months testing. The good news is, they're all the same 6 months."
It's important to design enough to have a map of what you are trying to code, and how it relates to the rest of the system. You can't just code most large projects - they're too big, and usually involve multiple components. I've done that when I was young, and you end up with a big ball of mud, or stay up all night for a week refactoring it.
What I tend to do now is design down to the package level, and assign roles to components. On large systems getting to the component selection stage can take several months, and involve some trail and prototyping coding.
Then the APIs and implementations of each package are evolved, based on what messages the functionality require, and how the clients of the packages evolve to cause the emergence of further requirements or constraints. I usually evolve an API by designing a pure interface (by writing the code for it) with unit tests for each known use case, then implement it. So there is some writing of code involved in designing - the best representation of the API is usually the code and inline documentation, and it's easiest to confirm that the client can perform the actions required to satisfy a use case ( and the code to do so is not excessively complex ) by writing code which exercises the API in that way, and that code trivially becomes a unit test for the implementation of the API when it arrives. But the code written during 'designing' isn't the code which supplies the implementation of the API. For APIs with low coupling ( so can be changed without breaking too many clients ), I'll switch between designing and implementing modes rapidly; for ones with higher coupling, I'll typically publish the API and use-case examples for peer review before committing too implementing them.
As aleemb said, this really is a project management question. I suggest you read up on several methodologies, find the useful and not-so-useful parts of each, and evaluate your own circumstances (team size/experience, customer engagement and commitment levels, what's done in your organization, schedule/budget, etc.) and come up with the best schedule you can. It really all just depends on your specific circumstances.
Think about how many people are going to be involved in writing the software.
If it's just a one-developer job, maybe take a smaller percentage for design. If you're going to have 30 people working on it, you probably want a lot bigger fraction for the design.
Getting teams of developers to write software is much like partitioning software up across multiple CPU's - you are going to get the best return for added CPU (read 'developer') when you can minimize the necessary communication between them. You sure don't want to get 10's of k-loc into your project before the developers start discussing architectural issues.
Now you could probably also make the case that, when you do a better job with the design phase, the coding will actually take less time and be less painful. Measure twice and cut once, and all that.
Also, you probably should think about the likelihood of the project being 'put on hold'; design artifacts have much better shelf life than immature code.
Depends on your chosen methodology.
Traditionally with Big Design Up Front or Waterfall you spend 90% of the time designing and 10 % of the time coding. You then spend another 90% of the time handling all the changes that the initial design missed. And another 90% of the time chasing bugs.
With modern Agile development you spend 10% of the time designing and 90% of the time coding. then another 90% handling all the changes that the customer representative forgot to mention and another 90% of the time chasing bugs.