One thing that I can't get my head around is the persistent questioning here, and elsewhere on the web, about disabling OS-based 'features'. People are forever asking how to disable default OS shortcuts (like copy-paste, the Windows key, etc.), or disabling features programmatically.
Surely this is very, very bad practice? To modify a user's operating environment with your program, unless it's specifically targeted at helping the used to modify their own operating environment (which, in the majority of cases I've seen, I highly doubt it). I'd never want a program modifying my bound shortcuts, or changing the default behaviour/feature-set of my environment. Is that a general consensus, or is that just me? It violates virtually every base heuristic and usability/consistency theory I can think of - not least of which, the principle of least astonishment.
The question, then, is this: Is there ever a time (aside from when aiding the user in modifying their environment) when manipulating/changing/disabling features of the operating system, or of the user's general environment, is acceptable practice? Should a program ever attempt to disable the Windows key, copy/paste shortcuts, adjust the Start button text, or anything of a similar vein, without the user's explicit permission, and without the change being fundamentally necessary to the execution of the purpose of the program?
I believe it is perfectly acceptable if you are building an "appliance" for example like the kiosks you find in bookstores. In cases like these it does make sense to disable most of the known shortcuts and features.
No.
For normal applications, where the user expects to be in control and may well be running other apps, this sort of behavior serves only to subvert the user's expectations, may damage native accessibility features of the OS, and will generally lead to frustration.
Even exceptions such as those noted by ocdecio and overslacked, though well-intentioned, may fall into this trap (how many games have you played that would crash leaving important system features disabled, or kiosks that disabled task switching but forgot to disable system notifications...) Whenever possible, developers should look first to the OS itself for support in implementing full-screen, restricted, or kiosk applications.
BTW - marking CW, very subjective.
Meta answer: It may be a good idea if-and-only-if your real reason for doing it so is in the user's interest.
And don't try to lie to the user about doing it for "security". You can count on being publicly named and shamed.
If you are limiting the user for your advantage, and not theirs, you are in dangerous territory, indeed. Crippling my machine without my express permission will get you put forever on the filter-with-extreme-prejudice list...
Yes, I think so, although it's rare and should be very temporary. For example, a DVD player disabling the screen saver, or a presentation, game, or "parent-ware" type app disabling the Windows key.
It's very good advice to avoid doing these things, but there are times when it's appropriate and even necessary.
I've seen apps (including the Windows OS, I think) that disable cut and paste when in a password text box.
I would agree that there are rare reasons, but that is is bad practice in general.
An example of a good divergence from normal interface behaviour is Ctrl-C on a terminal emulator on winblows.
In general, disabling "the normal" O/S interface features is obviously silly. Can you imagine having to search for the brake pedal in a hire car? How safe would feel about driving it off the lot? Having to search for the lights, wipers, indicators, and hand brake is bad enough... The brake pedal should be the one the middle, or the left;-) It Works. Don't Effin Eff With It!
Having said that: Neil Frasers blog systematically destructs many of the "universal tenets" of UI design by evaluating their application to the venerable TI80 programmable caclulator. The phrase "This results in an inferior calculator" somehow branded itself into my brain.
I believe consistency of interface is paramount. For instance, I use a product called SOATest. It's an Eclipse based Java app for testing SOAP (et al.) web-services. It has one very annoying quirk. Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert don't work in any of its text areas, but they do work in many (not all) of its text-boxes. If those keys consistently didn't work I would adapt far more readily. I find this little quirk terribly annoying because (to me as a professional programmer) it represents "just plain ole sloppy work".
So... Keiths first rule of UI design: Whatever you do, FFS do it consistently! Your users are smart, they will adapt.
Cheers. Keith.
Related
Firstly, I am not a professional coder. I am working for finance unit of an international firm, responsible of preparing financials etc. for regulatory bodies etc.
I have designed a PowerShell solution which looks for specific files in network drive and if it finds the files, sends them via outlook e-mail to my team members. But if it does not find the files, sends the e-mail with a warning text etc.
This was working fine until our IT admins applied a system-wide PowerShell Constrained Language mode. This mode prevents running of outlook-related e-mail automation commands in ps1 file and making my solution useless.
My 1st question is about bypassing this mode and the powershell itself. Can I design a similar solution in visual studio ? If so what kind of project should I work on, in which language?
My 2nd question is about insisting on my current solution. I can understand IT admins in my organization putting PowerShell Constrained Language mode into use, as there are risks of viruses and attacks with bad intentions. Is there any other way which eliminates these risks while keeping my solution still working.
p.s. I have excel vba codes of the same solution but I do not want to use it as it interrupts my work while I was doing something in excel (excel is nearly always open&busy in my PC).
As the comment thread contributors suggested, the way to solve this kind of issue is to talk to the management. Do not try to work around the technical safeguards, although it would be easy to do so. If you do, keep in mind that intentional violation of a security policy might be a fireable offence.
When dealing with your boss, a solution-oriented approach is often useful. Don't just complain about the policy, offer a solution. Write up max two pages memo explaining the issue. Include an estimate how much manual routine work you have to do, if they are error-prone, what are the effects of an human error and what more productive things you could do meanwhile. Even if it's five minutes a day, sum it up to yearly level.
The important thing is that you propose solutions. You could ask IT if they have any ideas. For example, IT could sign the script. They could take over the whole thing, so you wouldn't need to worry about running it anymore. Maybe an existing monitoring system could watch the files for you. Explore the options.
Don't overdo the memo, less your boss is going to wonder how many hours you've used to write a memo instead of, you know, doing your actual work. See The Workplace for further advice.
I think one of the main causes of winrot are the sheer number of services that run at startup (and don't shut down) that phone home every x seconds to see if there is a new version of some piece of software.
Me personally, I disable every single one of them because they seem utterly useless to me. Most of the software packages that use these things, have an option to check for updates whenever you launch the program itself too. This looks way more efficient to me.
I was asking myself what the reason is for companies like Adobe and Apple to create such services that bog clients' computers down and at the same time increase the burden on their own update servers for what looks to me as very little return value for neither of them.
My client requests such a service, but I don't see any reason for it. I want to make sure I'm not missing a piece of the puzzle so I can come back with an educated opinion on why this is should or shouldn't be a desired functionality.
It's usually a desire by management to get brand recognition. It goes something like this:
Oh no. If our program just does its job, the user will never see that it's there, and they'll never find out who we are, and what a great company we are.
We need an icon in the tray; we need a shortcut on the desktop, and in the quick launch toolbar, and at the top level of the Start menu. If we could add a control panel applet, and an item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer, and an icon in Internet Explorer, that'd be fantastic.
Of course, since our program's so important, the user's going to be using it a lot. Let's add a "speed boost" program that runs at startup, that makes sure that all of our binaries and dependencies are pre-loaded in the cache.
Oh, and we'll need an automated update program, to make sure that all of these components are as wham-bam-great as we can make them.
And can you put a splash screen on that as well?
Can you tell I'm bitter?
Roger's spot on.
Plus, once an application has developed to the point where it already has all the features you could expect it to cover for its intended purpose, the vendor is stuck. They need to keep banging out exciting new versions, so scope bloat creeps in. Instead of doing one thing well and getting out of the way, we must do everything related to it. We must always be in the user's face; they must never be allowed to use software that isn't ours; they must always be interacting with our brand. And of course we must take care to always start an updater task in the background, because we added a completely unnecessary internet-facing browser plugin/toolbar/ActiveX thing that will surely turn out to have security holes.
Acquisitive software is a huge problem that is steadily degrading the user experience on Windows. And it's an arms race: Microsoft hide old application surface interfaces (deprecating the classic start menu, removing quick launch, hiding system tray icons, auto-removing inactive Desktop icons) as they become so full of acquisitive-software junk that they're basically unusable, whilst introducing new ones that "will be better". But how long until applications start "helpfully" adding themselves to the Start menu's MRU list (because you're definitely going to want to use our great software a lot!) and pinning themselves to the Windows 7 dock?
Linux is doing better here because the distros own access to the user and aren't going to put up with any of this crap. Not something Microsoft can get away with though unfortunately.
Bonus Did You Know Fun Fact: Once upon a time, Nero was a nice, elegant CD-burning tool.
I find that most of microsoft's new programs are very hard to use.
Microsoft Office 2007 (word especially) I find to be hard to use.
Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN, I never remember which icon to click on, things are just to cluttered and hard to find.
As a programmer, we have to design according to what people are used too, what exactly is MS telling us to do?
we have to design according to what people are used too
Well that's a slight misconception. You're not wrong that people familiar with something will appreciate the interface remaining familiar, but not all change is bad. You have to weigh the power of the change up against the harm it does to veteran users.
Lets take Office 2007 as an example.
The ribbon interface is a huge departure from the interface Office has used for as long as I can remember but there is sound logic behind it.
User functions are grouped by activity and it's very easy to change which set of functions you're looking at.
They're also contextual so some thing only show up when you're on a table or an image (etc).
These both help keep the clutter down - something really quite useful as these apps grow in feature-sets. Rather than spending hours choosing and customising a set of toolbars, you have access to everything through the tabs.
And Microsoft did this all the right way. They tested the interface on lots and lots of real people. They listened to see what worked and what they should fix or drop. They also kept some legacy keyboard shortcuts for seasoned pros.
The redesign effort was targeted at making life easier on beginner and intermediate -level users. Mission accomplished. The problem you're having is overcoming your familiarity but I can't be more helpful than say: It'll happen in time, but you'll manage it in the end.
Look, I'm just a simple caveman, scared by your post-modern architectures and vroom vroom machines go honk. I'm used to the simple life of the paleolithic era; charcoal cave paintings and bone-based technology. I can't make heads or tails of your fancy ribbon UIs and pointy-clicky icons. That's why I'm never upgrading from DOS. The old ways were always the best, and learning new ones bad like fire.
Well, Microsoft has to balance this. On one side, users scream for new features and change-for-change's sake in a lot of MS software. On the other, lack of backwards compatibility (including subjective UI compatibility) is a deal breaker. Really no way to win there.
That said, I don't think we need to design according to what people are used to; neither does Microsoft. Change will never happen if we just do what has always been done before. IIS is not developed for programmers; it's developed for IT people. And the new interface serves them well. Likewise, Office is designed for office drones, not programmers, and the new Office is very discoverable for that particular group.
I think they take a while to get used to, but I do like them. (Althought I will fully admit I am a mac person and I like the mac UI a lot better).
The biggest thing I've seen about the UI that is difficult is the fact that it is so much different from previous versions (I'm talking about the current version of Office). That seems to be where most of the rub is.
The rule I was taught about UI design is that things need to be familiar to the user (that's really is what makes it "intuitive"). MS broke that rule ......but from a business perspective they are allowed a little leeway when doing this simply because they control so much of the market share. Ultimately, they know that a radical change won't cause a loss of much market share because for most people and businesses there isn't a real viable alternative. (I know there is open office, but migrating a mid to large office to it will cost as much money or more as it will to just continue using the same product).
Do we have to design according to what people are used to, yes we kinda do. Does this mean we have to make it look like what MS is doing now, not necessarily. What we have to do is create a design the users can relate to. They have to be able to make a jump of logic from what they know already to using the products we create. If not, they most likely won't use the application unless they are absolutely forced to.
User interface and user experience are totally separate concepts. (Simon Guest; User Interface Blog.)
Microsoft did quite a bit of research in the raw usability of Office 2007, and found that while there is a learning curve for people like yourself, or me, who are experts in the tool, newer users and non-experts experienced much greater discoverability of more advanced features, and wound up using more of the application's features and power. Yes, there is a learning curve if you knew Office 2003 inside-out (which, frankly, few of us really did).
Now I'm not making apologies -- Microsoft's UIs haven't always been easy to use, and sometimes they fail miserably. (Personally I think not standardizing all of their office products on the Ribbon is a classic example -- there's a large context switch in my brain when I open Project or Visio, compared to when I open Word.)
As for what developers are "supposed" to do: Bear in mind that the ribbon isn't ideal for every scenario. If you're using it as a glorified, prettified toolbar, it's being used incorrectly. It's designed to help you organize literally hundreds (if not thousands) of commands in a way that makes them discoverable to your end user. It's supposed to reinforce the traditional experience of discovering the abilities of your application in a safe way (see any edition of About Face), when the depth of your application is too great to function within menus.
Aside from that, bear in mind that we should generally be making the most appropriate UI for our own audience, as Microsoft is attempting to do for its own audience. Again, we may find these things more difficult to use, as we are used to doing things a set way -- but it's the right thing (typically) for Microsoft to do. Remember that we programmers are not the target users of most UI. (How many of us turn off visual themes, for example? Now how many normal end users? BTW, I don't fall in that camp; I'm one of the few who actually finds Vista moderately attractive.)
Again, at the end of the day, what Microsoft does matters only to the extent that it becomes what your users expect, and then only if you can't educate them that "your way" is better. In any event, if usability is truly critical for you and your users, it's time to invest in usability testing and ensure that your application really is as usable as you think it is. And start reading usability sites. (You don't have to agree with them all, but understand them.) Here are some samples:
AskTog (Bruce Tognazzini, inactive but the archives are a treasure trove)
UseIt (Jakob Nielsen)
jnd.org (Don Norman)
Office User Interface Blog (Jensen Harris)
Microsoft Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines (The holy word on Windows)
It's interesting because there was a lot of talk about the usability testing that went into the design of the Ribbon controls, but along with almost everyone else I know I find them very difficult to use. I keep losing controls that I need and not being able to get them back until I've cycled through another three or four document views looking for them. I instinctively move my mouse to menus that no longer exist.
I wonder if they would be easier to someone not accustomed to the earlier office products- maybe this is who they did their usability testing with. I don't think the design of the new interfaces is bad as such, but it is different enough that for those of us who don't spend our whole time staring at Office but have been using the product for a long time it makes life difficult. I guess most real power-users would be doing most tasks from keystrokes anyway which presumably haven't changed too much.
The business problem is really that they need an incentive to upgrade and so they keep adding new features ( who do you know that uses all the features of Word ) and then they need to find ways to present those without making the application impossibly cluttered, which was certainly happening in the previous version of Office.
I'm not sure what we take from this as developers- maybe it's that we should design for usability from the start or find ways to make the transition between old and new functionality as easy as possible for our existing users.
Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN
I'm relieved to hear that others have found the new IIS UI a challenge. I stumbled into it without being forewarned, and was completely discombobulated. There is so much clicking around. You have to memorize where the feature is, or click and click. I don't know of a way to see all of the IIS settings at once (not that you could before, either, but at least you could stay in the single tabbed dialog).
I think it is really hard to adapt to an entirely new UI when you are so familiar with the old one. I am similarly disoriented by the ribbon menus. More clicking around to find the features. And not everything is in the ribbon. Some is in menus accessible from other entry points, such as file properties.
For new users who never saw the old UIs, it probably isn't so much of a problem.
I guess what I really dislike is having to spend the time learning the new UI, at the least convenient time. There is an immediate loss of productivity when you have to learn the new UI. You can't just drop into IIS, configure the website, and be on your way. The first few times, it's going to take a lot longer. Maybe with growing familiarity, we will come to like the new UIs better.
I wish they had given the option to show the menus for us old fuddy duddies.
I had a meeting with one of the Microsoft Office guys last year when I brought up the same points. His point was that the number of features had grown so much that a new method of displaying them was required. I was not entirely convinced and found it amusing that Microsoft are so touchy about the problem that he had a very nice, well-prepared PowerPoint presentation to give to try and explain it.
MS is trying to give users more power by being able to click this to do this or that and try to make what others may see as very advanced functions simpler to use and more powerful than the previous ones. I remember going from IIS 3.0 to 4.0 where suddenly, there are all these new buttons to click and things are different but it is kind of better. I also remember going from Windows 3.11 to 95 having its own shock of updating things.
Did you ever try watching a movie on VHS and on DVD or go from cassette to CD? Remember how the DVD suddenly had all these new features like chapters, no need to rewind, bonus features that you could just go to and not have to fast forward to find? Similarly how a CD organized things so much better than a cassette? Another point would be to look at TVs where it used to be very few options on a TV: There were 2 dials, the power and volume where combined into one place, and a few other knobs were all we had but now you have TVs where you can store favorites, closed captioning options, sound setting, and color style that could scare some people that remember the old days where you had to physically pull a knob to turn on the machine.
I find that most of microsoft's new
programs are very hard to use.
If you feel so, do yourself a favor and change to Mac. I did it and wont go back to windows. So much time wasted to achieve little things with Windows.
And Apple has Style Guides for GUIs. You dont have to stick to them, but as far as I can tell most developers do.
To prevent a Mac-Windows-Flamewar I would like to point out that this is totally my opinion. Please dear Windows user, do not feel attacked by my opinion.
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.
We've got products built both with GUI and CHUI. Going forward, we're looking at redesigning a lot of our software and mainly taking the route of going all GUI. My question to the group is, do we need to account for keeping a CHUI around? What are the advantages of CHUI over GUI? Many times in the past people have said that CHUI is faster because you don't need a mouse. I argue that GUI can be just as fast with the right keyboard shortcuts, hotkeys and/or touch screens.
Is CHUI something we should no longer consider if hardware no longer provides a constraint?
Also to clarify, when I speak about CHUI I mean a CHaracter based User Interface, and I'm also mainly concerned with the effective presentation of data to an end user.
There have been some fantastic responses that have highlighted the importance of having a command line based interface for automation and scripting based tasks which I will certainly take to heart when we begin the design!
The primary benefits of a CHUI (that is something with forms and fields, not necessarily command line interfaces) is the keyboard for navigation and consistent layout. That is key.
If your GUI can be completely, and efficiently, keyboard navigated, then your CHUI user base should be happy. This is because in time, the users simply "type" their commands in to the system without "seeing the interface". They don't need to "discover" the interface, which is a primary feature of the GUI.
While CHUIs appear to be dinosaurs, they are still functional and usable. Most folks once they're trained (notably POS/Counter workers, but even back office scenarios like factory or warehouse floor, etc) have no problem using a CHUI.
But the key is the keyboard support so the user don't have to wait for the screen to catch up with them. Seeing a skilled operator with a mastery of the keyboard can make an application fly. You barely have a chance to see popup windows and what not.
You should poll your customers, not programmers. If your customers, who use your applications, want a CHUI, even if all your developers think it's a waste of time, you build it, because the customer is always right (except for when they're wrong).
You should absolutely still consider it. Most importantly, command line programs can be automated (and chained together in scripts) much more easily than GUIs (typically). I can't imagine working with a source control tool which didn't have a command line interface - although obviously having a GUI is useful too.
Now whether you need a command line version for your particular app is hard to say without knowing what your app does. Do you need automation and scripting? Might someone want to VPN in and run it from a very bad connection, and thus appreciate low bandwidth?
Note that MS certainly doesn't believe the command line is dead - or they wouldn't have created PowerShell.
I agree with Eli that your customers should have final say, but if you can keep the meat of your program from being too interwoven with the GUI(or CHUI), then production cost to make both available should be minimal.
If you write apps for unix and you need to handle users who telnet / ssh to your box then you will need command line interfaces.
I would say it depends on your target. Do you script your code from other apps? That would be a requirement to keep the interactive version (or some piece to avoid the GUI startup).
We usually do one or the other. But sometimes we have utils that have to be deployable through ftp and run ssh. Or we have tools that our users embed into their apps and don't want to expose a UI (data migration / conversion).
To this day, some of the most efficient user interfaces I've ever seen were plain old terminal-based character interfaces.
Anecdote: I was once part of a project to "modernize" a terminal application used by 500 customer service representatives. We published sexy GUI mockups and everyone, including the users, were suitably impressed. We worked for six months on the application, and all the user acceptance testing seemed to indicate we had a winner.
But when the application was finally launched, it failed miserably. As it turns out, CSRs are measured for performance daily, right down to the average number of seconds per call handled. And no matter how hard they tried, they could not match the same level of efficiency in the GUI as they could in the terminal interface. They could get close with tabs and shortcuts, but not quite there.
Hard lessons learned. Modern programmers may abhor "dinosaurs", but do users really care about slick interfaces? Usually they just want to get their work done.
When I first read this, my immediate thought was that this is probably one of those apps that's basically a series of forms, but displays inside a terminal. Often you see such dinosaurs running on cash registers. I also recall seeing such an app used to apply for a loan when I bought my car. This type of application doesn't seem to have a place in the modern world -- any system with even a tiny bit of processing power can handle a normal GUI nowadays. Unless you're trying to support really low-end legacy customers, get rid of this user interface. A GUI with decent keyboard shortcuts (please, please, please put some thought into keyboard-only use of your GUI programs...) is going to be equally effective for the users coming from the old CHUI system and much friendlier to those used to a GUI, without having to have 2 versions of your app.
I don't see why everyone is bringing up command line apps. I think most people recognize that the command line isn't going away. It's far faster for many tasks than a GUI, largely because the programs tend to be non-interactive (and thus easily scriptable). As soon as your app becomes interactive (or, at least, doesn't have a param to make it non-interactive), running it from the command line is much less important. Even awesome programs like Vim that are terminal-based are transitioning to their graphical counterparts (gVim) because it gives you the best of both worlds.
Even GUI apps like Firefox can benefit from command line interfaces like Ubiquity. If there's a way to provide the command line from within the GUI then why not have the best of both worlds?
A lot of CAD programs have command line interfaces that show you what the GUI interaction you just performed equates to in the command line. That way you can learn the command line operations for the things that you do frequently and where the command line can be quicker to interact with whist still having the discoverability of the GUI interface.
See this youtube video demonstrating Rhino3D's command line
CHUI is faster in execution speed, not user interaction speed. I write embedded systems (as well as GUIs), so I'll always have a use for command line apps.
Every study I have ever read showed that CHUI's are much faster for experienced users. GUI's are easier for new users and for applications that are only occasionally used. Also for a given screen size, you can display more information on a CHUI then a GUI. A good GUI can give you a quick over view at a glance.
In addition to the other benefits mentioned above, I've frequently found another reason to keep around an alternative UI--it keeps you and your interfaces honest. When an application is built with only one user interface, it becomes much easier to let design principles slide and for your business logic, etc. and your GUI to become an intertwined ball of spaghetti--despite best intentions. Regardless of the importance of your customers having a command-line interface, soon there might come a time when an alternative GUI (read: presentation layer) might be needed, and you'll want to be prepared. This might not be relevant to your requirements, but I think it's something good to keep in mind...
One of the big issues that we encountered was multisession capability which is almost nonexistent with the GUI technologies I have seen. Our users were quick to point out that with the current character based interface they could have over a dozen Telnet based terminal sessions going at the same time on their PC screen which enabled them to multitask or task switch with high efficiency. They rated multitasking as the killer feature which they benefitted from in our fast paced environment where interruptions are frequent. Being able to have concurrent access to multiple instances of a particular ERP application or multiple different ERP applications while always retaining session states was important to our user community.
I think the problem comes from design practices in GUI forms. We tend to place more objects on them especially with a vertical scroll bar and tab capabilities. This also makes loading slower. Going through CHUI menus with the keyboard is faster once you've memorized those sequences and holding the Ctrl key isn't required. There is something about the menu bar in Windows where the short-cut key descriptions are off to the right. The character based menus seemed easier to remember after awhile.
A) - This Menu
B) - That Menu
C) - Some other Menu
Or you could arrow through the choices and you just seemed to have some muscle memory where That Menu is the second choice.
As soon as you present some data, someone's going to want to query against it. You can integrate that with a gui, no problem. If you think some of your customers are going to want to script certain tasks. set it up. Anything to do with automation is better done from the command line(y harlo thar cron job!)
I love guis. I'm a mac user. But there is a time and a place for a CLI.
I was sysadmin at a university math department when the registration system went from a character based system using telnet, to a gui system on a PeopleSoft app.
The gals in the front office HATED the new system. Now part of this was the whole bit about old shoes being more comfortable. But when I asked about it, Christine said that even after a week of doing several hundred registrations per day, the new system took several times as long to do anything. Lots of things only doable with a mouse. The old system could accept input as fast as they could type. Screen repaints were under a tenth of a second. New system had lots of 3/4 to 2 second pauses -- just long enough to be annoying, not long enough to do anything else.