I definitely appreciate a good interface and as a developer, I try to create them for my users. But appreciating a good interface and designing one are a different thing. I'm looking for good interfaces (such as IMHO StackOverflow, Gmail) as examples of good UI from which I can model my own UI's.
I personally think that Netflix has an excellent web UI. Responsive, easy to navigate. Not mutch CRUD going on, but I find it very comfortable.
Pretty much anything by google, really. They're all very simple and to the point, focusing on usability.
You should get yourself a copy of both Don't Make Me Think and The Non-Designer's Design Book for your base knowledge/insight.
From there, it's much easier for you to dissect and analyze the layouts you already know and like, and recreate them for your own amusement.
edit: To mitigate misunderstanding, the point I'm trying to make is that you probably don't need as many good examples of nice layouts, if you know what to look for. For example, I can be shown a thousand haute couture dresses, and I still couldn't make one myself, because I don't know what to look for.
My favorites
Stack Overflow: This is a WIKI so it's not a rep point grab. I just really love the interface on this site. Been to too many crappy Q/A sites
Google Reader
MSDN: It's gotten a ton better in recent years and is a great way to grab little esoteric details about various APIs
iStockPhoto.com it's simple, effective and handles a large amount of information and data without getting bogged down. It also doesn't get in the way of the info you are looking for.
A good user interface fulfills a specific need of its users effectively.
As an example, here is a site (translation) that I have created for finding out what food is available in the cafeterias of the University of Helsinki. The typical use case is that when a student is hungry, he needs to know what food is available in the neighborhood student cafeterias (which are cheap for students), so that he can choose where to eat and what. He knows where each of those cafeterias is, but does not know what food they have today.
That site shows all the needed information at once. Because the students typically have a couple of cafeterias where they go, they can either bookmark the page with those cafeterias selected, or save the selection as a cookie. After that they can reach their goal without any navigation on the web site.
I don't use it on a day-to-day basis, but I'm very impressed with the Perseus Project digital library.
Here's a link to a poem from Catullus' Carmina in Latin as an example of the interface. Some features that I really like:
Click on the bar near the top to jump to any poem in the work. Larger chunks of the bar represent larger sections of the work (poems, chapters, however that particular work is logically broken up by the author).
Click on a Latin word in the poem to bring up a window (be patient; it seems to take a while) with lexicon entries, user voting and statistics on the word form (i.e. what the inflection means in the context of the sentence; it can be ambiguous in Latin) and so forth.
There are a number of resources down the right column, including various English translations, notes, references, etc. Any of them can be either shown in the right column, or swapped out with whatever is in the main content area in the center.
One of my personal favs: newspond.com
Related
Can anyone recommend a good option to translate websites into Spanish? We tried using the Google translate plugin but the translation was so rough (very inaccurate, bordering on embarrassing the company) we had to hire a company to refine the translation so that it was much more accurate which makes for an extremely inefficient process for updating the site moving forward.
We're in health insurance, so the language we're translating is very specialized in nature and needs to be accurate for our members. To make it even more complicated, the Google Translate plugin happens instantly, so the translation is live before we have a chance to refine it before users can see it. In other words, there's no way to refine the translation before you make the content visible to users in the production environment. This is a legal regulatory requirement for Covered California and the Affordable Care Act, so it has to be a top notch implementation.
Short of a proxy solution that intercepts the content before it hits the production site or a separate site coded in Spanish, I'm not sure what other solutions exist if any. Ideas? The separate site solution is also problematic because it requires a bilingual staff and it doubles the work because both environments have to mirror each other exactly at all times.
Recommendations? Ideas? Any suggestions based on experience are most welcome!
Hire developer - he will describe all you need. You will never do it by your own. If you already have - hire new one, he will know how to do it. Question is very spiciefied but any (let's take for example php) php-engine (framework) or even custom php-engine can be updated the way you want.
Preview before upload to public? Easy! Change by moderator|admin values of translations? Easy! Main thing that each sentence (or even paragraph) you will describe by your own... I don't want describe all mechanism of it - hire developer and he will do all you need. $)
I'm in the process of developling various applications for whom the end users are both engineers and salesman. Some of the operations and options may not be immediately obvious to all users. All applications are delivered with a PDF and paper manual - but of course nobody reads them!
I would like to improve the usability of the applications by including dynamic context sensitive help. One option would be alá MSDN and have F1 call up a web page - however internet access will not always be available and even this will be too much effort for some.
Another idea is to have descriptions pop up when an option is hovered over - like a tooltip.
I'm interested in other peoples views on this and what are best practices in this situation. Along a similar theme to this post What are common UI misconceptions and annoyances? I'd like to start a discussion regarding these two points:
What would be the best way to go about it?
What help features in existing applications you use either delight or annoy you..?
In my experience nobody but programmers reads the help. So when you have a technical and non-technical target audience you end up providing 2 ways of doing everything:
A Wizard with a few options.
A property editor with lots of options.
In either case, pictures are usually better than words for documentation. So a screenshot or 3 with big green arrows and circles calling out what does what will go a lot further than an indexing, exhaustive help file.
In my experience it would be very helpful to have a tooltip on each option that provides a little more definition/clarity for each option. Additionally, you can improve usability by having the default screen contain a few common, simple options and providing an advanced section that provides more control.
I'm currently working on a similar side-project. We have an existing product that's used by people as part of their day job. There is an inherent learning curve on the product, so users receive some degree of training and have people they can turn to for assistance. Even so, we know it needs more help and user documentation in general.
We are starting this help enhancement project by running a quick survey on the end users, (offering a prize draw as an incentive). We will also speak to the support staff who have to deal with help requests. This will uncover some of the pain points, and will give us a clear idea of how to focus our time & resources.
Guidelines on when to use inline tips vs tool tips etc can be found in various style guides, e.g. here:
http://developers.sun.com/docs/web-app-guidelines/uispec4_0/11-help.htm
Bear in mind that it's probably a bad idea to just copy & paste the text from your existing manuals into contextual help tips. You're going to need help writing completely new content. See if you can get some time from a technical writer / copywriter.
I have used CAPTCHA on my various web sites in the standard manner where I generated some obfuscated string of characters (odd pair of words, random number, etc.) in an image for the user to manually reproduce in a text box. I am also aware of recaptcha.net which extends the basic functionality of screening bots from humans and as well as helping to digitize books. I just came across another way of performing CAPTCHA with the AJAX Fancy CAPTCHA jQuery plugin which rather than asking the user to reproduce a string instead asks the user to drag an image that is readily recognizable (scissors, pencil, book, etc.) into an area that is equally recognizable. When I saw this I had to say to myself "WOW...that's cool!"
Question: Does anyone out there have any other examples of a neat and different way of performing CAPTCHA without having to generate a random string of characters into an image for the user to try and read (or regenerate until they can) so that they can manually type it into a box?
I'd like to see ReCAPTCHA implemented for images that a computer can't tell whether or not they're pornography. Web filter companies could pay free porn sites to use this system to better fill out their blacklists. The free porn sites could then make more porn, and the web filters would have more porn to block.
You can have your users tell dogs and cats apart. Microsoft's Asirra.
I know I am not particularly helpful in this answer, feel free to downvote me if it's the case, but I want to present my technical opinion (albeit of a non-expert) on captchas.
As someone said, the captcha is an antipattern of the web. Its purpose is to let you demonstrate that you are human, by doing something that only a human (purposely) can do.
Fact is that, despite the captchas, the only achieved result has been to improve pattern recognition for software, producing better bots. In this sense, it can be said that the final, real purpose of captchas was not to select humans from bots, but select better bots (or cheap workers) from lousy ones.
What you are asking is actually a matter of current research. I've seen stuff like selecting cats from dogs, solving simple math problems, recognizing apples from oranges, counting the number of people in a photo, but in the end I doubt you will get something more proficient or user friendly than what's currently available. In the end, the pure fact of having to solve a captcha is user-unfriendly.
A CAPTCHA should be a last resort, having tried other alternatives. For example you can use a honeypot technique, that uses a form field that’s invisible to a user but visible to a bot – if it gets filled in, you know it’s not from a human.
In some cases you can experiment with softer CAPTCHAs like riddles or simple math problems. The best tactic - from a User Experience perspective - is to start as soft as possible, and only ramp up if bots become a real problem.
Have you tried Friendly Captcha? It solves the puzzle by itself (without specific input by the user). The user only has to interact with the page (moving the mouse, jumping between input fields) and the puzzle will be resolved bit by bit.
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'm building Desktop Software for over 10 years now, mostly it's simple Data-Input Software. My problem is, it's always looking the same: A Treeview on the Left and a lot of Text/Data Fields to the right, depending on the type of data currently is worked on. Are there any fresh ideas how such software nowadays should look like?
For further clarification:
It's very hierarchical data, mostly for electronic devices. There are elements of data which provide static settings for the device and there are parts which describe some sort of 'Program' for the device. There are a lot (more than 30) of different input masks. Of course i use combo boxes and Up/Down Entry Fields.
Having all of your software look the same thing is a good thing. One of the best ways to make it easy for people to use your software is to make it look exactly the same as other software your users already know how to use.
There are basically two common strategies for how to handle entry of a lot of data. The first is to have lots of data entry fields on one page. The next is to have only a few data entry fields but a lot of pages in a sort of wizard-style interface. Expert users find the latter much slower to use, as do users who are entering data over and over again. However, the wizard style interface is less confusing for newer users since it offers fewer elements at once and tends to provide more detail on them.
I do suggest replacing as many text fields as possible with auto-complete-based combo-boxes. This allows users to enter data exactly the same as with text-boxes, but also allows users to save typing by hitting the down key to scroll through choices after typing part of the data in.
Providing more detail on what data is being entered would probably yield more specific answers.
I'd also answer with a question, which is to ask what your motivation for considering a change is? Like the other posters, I'd agree that there is some value in consistency, but there's also a strong value in not ignoring niggles-in-the-back-of-the-mind feelings you have. Maybe you have a sense that your users aren't as productive as you'd like them to be, or you've heard feedback to that effect from your customers, or you're just looking to add some innovation for your own interest. Scratching itches is a good trait in a developer, in my view.
One thing I'd advocate would be a detailed user study. How much do you know about what your users do with the interfaces you create? Do you know the key tasks, the overall workflow? Would you know if one task regularly consumed 60% of your users' time, or if there was a task that was only performed once a month? Getting a good sense of what the users actually do (and not what they say they do) is a great place to start thinking about what changes might be worthwhile, especially if you can refactor the task to get a qualitatively different user experience.
A couple of specific alternative designs you might like to include in re-visioning the UI might be be facet browsing (works well for searching and exploring in hierarchies), or building a database of defaults / past responses so that text boxes can use predictive completion. However, I think my starting point would be the user study.
Ian
If it works...
Depending on what you've got happening with the data (that is, is it hierarchical, or fairly flat), you might want to try a tab-based metaphor, or perhaps the "Outlook-style", with a sidebar showing the sections of an application. One other notion I've played with lately is the "Object desktop" that I first saw proposed by Scott Ambler (Building Object Applications That Work). In this, you can display collections of items, or the user can "peel off" individual records for easy access.
Your information is not enough to really suggest you an interface alternative. However, may I answer your question with a question? Why do you think you have to change it? Has your customer complained? If not, it looks like your customer is happy with the way the software works right now, thus I wouldn't change it. If your customer complains about it, he'll most likely not just say "It's bad", he will say "Why can't it look like ..." and this will give you an idea how to change it.
I once had to re-design a very outdated goods management system. The old one was written for a now dead database system, still running in MS-DOS. The customer suggested I should create a prototype how this re-implementation might look like and then he'll decide if I get that job or not. I replaced the old, dead database with a modern MySQL database, I replaced the problematic shared peer access with a client server approach and I chose to rewrite the UI in Java, since different OSes were used and this had the smallest porting costs. So far the concept seemed good, the customer liked it. However, when he asked his employees what they think about it, they asked "So far it's great, but we have one question: Why doesn't it look like the old one?". Actually, it turned out that even with all the modern technologies, they wanted the interface to exactly look and being operated like the old one. So I had to re-build a 1986 usability nightmare MS-DOS UI in Java, because no other UI was accepted.
For me it is more about a clean, usable, logical design than anything else. If your program makes sense to the user, isn't clunky and works as advertised, then everything else UI related is essentially just like painting the house. I've sometimes rolled out a new version of a program with essentially the same controls that are skinned differently.
There's a reason that you've probably chosen the tree view - because it probably makes really good sense to do so. There are different containers and controls available in the various UI libraries, depending on the language, but I tend to stick with the familiar because the user probably gets how a tree control works and how a combobox works.
A user interface needs to be usable, just don't do the misstake to change to something working to something fancy-schmancy just because it looks better (been down that road)...
Make sure that added
widgets/controls really add a business value
Make sure that the added
widgets/controls do not mess up your
architecture (too much) and makes
the application harder to
manage/maintain
Try to keep platform standards on
how to do things (for example the Vista ux guidelines)
:)
//W
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What is your best practical user-friendly user-interface design or principle?
Please submit those practices that you find actually makes things really useful - no matter what - if it works for your users, share it!
Summary/Collation
Principles
KISS.
Be clear and specific in what an option will achieve: for example, use verbs that indicate the action that will follow on a choice (see: Impl. 1).
Use obvious default actions appropriate to what the user needs/wants to achieve.
Fit the appearance and behavior of the UI to the environment/process/audience: stand-alone application, web-page, portable, scientific analysis, flash-game, professionals/children, ...
Reduce the learning curve of a new user.
Rather than disabling or hiding options, consider giving a helpful message where the user can have alternatives, but only where those alternatives exist. If no alternatives are available, its better to disable the option - which visually then states that the option is not available - do not hide the unavailable options, rather explain in a mouse-over popup why it is disabled.
Stay consistent and conform to practices, and placement of controls, as is implemented in widely-used successful applications.
Lead the expectations of the user and let your program behave according to those expectations.
Stick to the vocabulary and knowledge of the user and do not use programmer/implementation terminology.
Follow basic design principles: contrast (obviousness), repetition (consistency), alignment (appearance), and proximity (grouping).
Implementation
(See answer by paiNie) "Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes."
Allow/implement undo and redo.
References
Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx]
Dutch websites - "Drempelvrij" guidelines [http://www.drempelvrij.nl/richtlijnen]
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/]
Consistence [http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0385267746]
Don't make me Think [http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/0321344758/ref=pdbbssr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221726383&sr=8-1]
Be powerful and simple [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511332.aspx]
Gestalt design laws [http://www.squidoo.com/gestaltlaws]
I test my GUI against my grandma.
Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes.
It means use
instead of
Follow basic design principles
Contrast - Make things that are different look different
Repetition - Repeat the same style in a screen and for other screens
Alignment - Line screen elements up! Yes, that includes text, images, controls and labels.
Proximity - Group related elements together. A set of input fields to enter an address should be grouped together and be distinct from the group of input fields to enter credit card info. This is basic Gestalt Design Laws.
Never ask "Are you sure?". Just allow unlimited, reliable undo/redo.
Try to think about what your user wants to achieve instead of what the requirements are.
The user will enter your system and use it to achieve a goal. When you open up calc you need to make a simple fast calculation 90% of the time so that's why by default it is set to simple mode.
So don't think about what the application must do but think about the user which will be doing it, probably bored, and try to design based on what his intentions are, try to make his life easier.
If you're doing anything for the web, or any front-facing software application for that matter, you really owe it to yourself to read...
Don't make me think - Steve Krug
Breadcrumbs in webapps:
Tell -> The -> User -> Where -> She -> Is in the system
This is pretty hard to do in "dynamic" systems with multiple paths to the same data, but it often helps navigate the system.
I try to adapt to the environment.
When developing for an Windows application, I use the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines but when I'm developing an web application I use the appropriate guidelines, because I develop Dutch websites I use the "Drempelvrij" guidelines which are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The reason I do this is to reduce the learning curve of a new user.
I would recommend to get a good solid understanding of GUI design by reading the book The Design of Everyday Things. Although the main printable is a comment from Joel Spolsky: When the behavior of the application differs to what the user expects to happen then you have a problem with your graphical user interface.
The best example is, when somebody swaps around the OK and Cancel button on some web sites. The user expects the OK button to be on the left, and the Cancel button to be on the right. So in short, when the application behavior differs to what the user expects what to happen then you have a user interface design problem.
Although, the best advice, in no matter what design or design pattern you follow, is to keep the design and conventions consistent throughout the application.
Avoid asking the user to make choices whenever you can (i.e. don't create a fork with a configuration dialog!)
For every option and every message box, ask yourself: can I instead come up with some reasonable default behavior that
makes sense?
does not get in the user's way?
is easy enough to learn that it costs little to the user that I impose this on him?
I can use my Palm handheld as an example: the settings are really minimalistic, and I'm quite happy with that. The basic applications are well designed enough that I can simply use them without feeling the need for tweaking. Ok, there are some things I can't do, and in fact I sort of had to adapt myself to the tool (instead of the opposite), but in the end this really makes my life easier.
This website is another example: you can't configure anything, and yet I find it really nice to use.
Reasonable defaults can be hard to figure out, and simple usability tests can provide a lot of clues to help you with that.
Show the interface to a sample of users. Ask them to perform a typical task. Watch for their mistakes. Listen to their comments. Make changes and repeat.
The Design of Everyday Things - Donald Norman
A canon of design lore and the basis of many HCI courses at universities around the world. You won't design a great GUI in five minutes with a few comments from a web forum, but some principles will get your thinking pointed the right way.
--
MC
When constructing error messages make the error message be
the answers to these 3 questions (in that order):
What happened?
Why did it happen?
What can be done about it?
This is from "Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop
Interface" (1987, ISBN 0-201-17753-6), but it can be used
for any error message anywhere.
There is an updated version for Mac OS X.
The Microsoft page
User Interface Messages
says the same thing: "... in the case of an error message,
you should include the issue, the cause, and the user action
to correct the problem."
Also include any information that is known by the program,
not just some fixed string. E.g. for the "Why did it happen" part of the error message use "Raw spectrum file
L:\refDataForMascotParser\TripleEncoding\Q1LCMS190203_01Doub
leArg.wiff does not exist" instead of just "File does
not exist".
Contrast this with the infamous error message: "An error
happend.".
(Stolen from Joel :o) )
Don't disable/remove options - rather give a helpful message when the user click/select it.
As my data structure professor pointed today: Give instructions on how your program works to the average user. We programmers often think we're pretty logical with our programs, but the average user probably won't know what to do.
Use discreet/simple animated features to create seamless transitions from one section the the other. This helps the user to create a mental map of navigation/structure.
Use short (one word if possible) titles on the buttons that describe clearly the essence of the action.
Use semantic zooming where possible (a good example is how zooming works on Google/Bing maps, where more information is visible when you focus on an area).
Create at least two ways to navigate: Vertical and horizontal. Vertical when you navigate between different sections and horizontal when you navigate within the contents of the section or subsection.
Always keep the main options nodes of your structure visible (where the size of the screen and the type of device allows it).
When you go deep into the structure always keep a visible hint (i.e. such as in the form of a path) indicating where you are.
Hide elements when you want the user to focus on data (such as reading an article or viewing a project). - however beware of point #5 and #4.
Be Powerful and Simple
Oh, and hire a designer / learn design skills. :)
With GUIs, standards are kind of platform specific. E.g. While developing GUI in Eclipse this link provides decent guideline.
I've read most of the above and one thing that I'm not seeing mentioned:
If users are meant to use the interface ONCE, showing only what they need to use if possible is great.
If the user interface is going to be used repeatedly by the same user, but maybe not very often, disabling controls is better than hiding them: the user interface changing and hidden features not being obvious (or remembered) by an occasional user is frustrating to the user.
If the user interface is going to be used VERY REGULARLY by the same user (and there is not a lot of turnover in the job i.e. not a lot of new users coming online all the time) disabling controls is absolutely helpful and the user will become accustomed to the reasons why things happen but preventing them from using controls accidentally in improper contexts appreciated and prevents errors.
Just my opinion, but it all goes back to understanding your user profile, not just what a single user session might entail.