As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I probably spend far too much time trying to make my visual interfaces look good, and while I'm pretty adept at finding the right match between usability and style one area I am hopeless at is making nice looking icons.
How do you people overcome this (I'm sure common) problem? I'm thinking of things like images on buttons and perhaps most important of all, the actual application icon.
Do you rely on third party designers, in or out of house? Or do you know of some hidden website that offers lots of icons for us to use? I've tried Google but I seem to find either expensive packages that are very specific, millions of Star Trek icons or icons that look abysmal at 16x16 which is my preferred size on in-application buttons.
Any help/advice appreciated.
Good icons are hard to design. I have tried to design my own, and have used in-house graphics designers as well. However, building a good icon set takes a lot of work, even for the graphic designer.
I believe your best solution is to buy/find a set of icons for use in your projects.
The silk icon set is a good, free set and can be found at FamFamFam. There are over 1000 icons in this set, and it is very popular.
If you are looking for something "different", you can purchase icon sets for a couple hundred bucks. Considering the cost of having a designer create them for you, or doing them yourself, the cost of these sets is cheap!
Here's a few icon designers I've come across of the web:
Icon Factory
Icon Experience
Icon Buffet
Don't forget either that unless you have lots of toolbar buttons or other such objects to fill, its possible to get by with very few icons beyond your own unique application icon and system icons. (Remember to call them from existing libraries on the user's machine, not repackage them, keep the lawyers happy.)
Having too many icons can be just as bad as having some ugly ones. Many guidelines state that if you can't have professional looking icons have some whitespace instead. It can help to keep the interface light and feel uncluttered.
If you have money, definitely go with a professional designer. At first if you don't have too many projects requiring a designer, just hire one on a contract basis. If you start feeling the need for a full-time designer then it's going to be beneficial to hire one.
Good looking free icon sets are available, but you should shop around for a decent icon set which you can reuse for most of your projects.
Finally, if you don't have access to a designer, just keep the look very clean and simple, because chances are that you can't do a good looking design (since you're not an artist).
You don't have to be a great designer to come out with a decent UI and a great user experience for your application.
I think there are certain principles you can follow that can dramatically improve your application.
At a high level this includes:
Identifying your top 3 use cases
Measuring and reducing the number of clicks it takes to get through the top use cases
Sketch, Prototype, Throw it away, and challenge yourself to do it with less
I've written a blog entry that attempts to write out some principles related to GUI design. Check it out and let me know what you think.
How to improve the User Experience of your GUI application with some simple principles.
These are the icon links I found some time ago, I think they were not posted yet:
Eyecandy for your KDE-Desktop
+3700 Free icons for your website or blog
Icons for people who need icons
Tango Icon Library
this also sounds interesting: OpenClipArt but their web does not seem to offer quick previews (thumbnails)
We have an in-house designer that does ours, although we also use freelance designers, too.
You could try starting a design competition on 99 Designs?
There are also some free icon sets available, like these.
If you google around, you'll also find quite a few commercially available icon sets that you can use (although obviously neither of the icon set options will get you an icon specific to your app!).
Hope that helps!
I have a couple that I really like:
GlyFx and Liquidicity Vector Icons.
Those from Liquidicity are specially useful for WPF or Silverlight, you can make an interface that even zoomed looks great.
I came across IconBuffet when registering my copy of Visual Studio Express. They have some awesome icons that you could use in your applications.
For application development I have also started playing with WPF interfaces in .Net, soon to be available on Mono as well. With the ability to use web images and pictures in Windows Applications even not creatives can develop some awesome interfaces.
For website layouts I use sites like OSWD for designs and layouts that are free.
I recommend IconFactory, too. Or to be exact: http://stockicons.com/ There are a lot of icon sets for an affordable price and I think buying a professional set is the best choice you have if you're not a graphics designer yourself.
If you only need a single icon, it's probably worth to hire a graphics designer.
But why on earth do you think you need to make icons to make your interfaces look good? Icon driven interfaces are the bane of UI these days. Look at a screenshot of Komodo IDE or Eclipse for example. These are horrendously badly designed interfaces. It's impossible to tell what the buttons do until you hover over them and get the tooltip. I suggest you use text unless there is an icon that better represents the concept, not feel you need to represent every idea visually.
I guess it depends what context you're developing UI for - have you a lot of users who don't speak English as their first language? Is it for occasional use or for power users to use every day? Is it a web site? Is it a desktop application?
But when you really need icons, there are some good libraries out there. I think consistency is really important; Tango for instance "exists to help create a consistent graphical user interface experience for free and Open Source software." and the rather attractive icons are licensed under Creative Commons
I thought it may be interesting to mention that Axialis has just released a version of the their Icon Studio for Visual Studio 2008 for free. It will only install if VS 2008 Pro or TFS is installed and plugs directly into the VS toolbar.
I have always liked the icon selections at VirtualLNK. They have a good number of icon packages that have a modern look at a reasonable price.
Try this site www.iconsreview.com, they offer reviews for a variety of icon packages, both free and for purchase.
www.iconshock.com has over 400,000 icons and you can buy the entire collection for around $400.
Alternatively there are a number of sites offering free icons, just be sure to check the licence.
I ended up getting $20 credits (min amount) from vectorstock - they have a lot of vector images, icons and stuff like that to choose from, selling for 1 credit (1$).
You can always go on Elance and hire someone to make any icons/logos for you. I've done it several times and it's pretty cheap for what you're getting. There is so much competition on that site that someone will eventually come in at your price point. I've always believed theres no point in spinning your wheels with something you don't really specialize in.
Oh yeah and like this site, keeping it simple is always best!
I try to keep my applications very simple. Simplicity and usability can be a good design in-and-of itself if done intelligently.
Take all of the buttons for Stackoverflow for example. It shouldn't be very difficult to implement something similar in your own application. They are simple and they get the job done.
Try aiming for clean and simple first, and then worry about aesthetic elements.
Cheat and use photo's!
I've struggle with this, What I tend to do now, is find photos of objects BUT on a plain white background. The background can be made transparent. I then use this Conversion tool to convert a PNG file into an .ico. When exporting include all resolutions up to 512 pixel size for good results.
Related
I have been playing around with php-gtk recently and in the past I have experimented with Java to make GUI 'hello world' apps.
However both these types of applications have had a bit of a clunky (almost childish) look and feel to them. I cannot deny that they are handy for making apps for in-house use (and I totally respect the amount of community effort that goes into these projects). But I would not necessarily be proud to sell it as a commercial application with a price tag of, say, £450 or £1,000.
If I wanted to make an application that had the look and feel of, say, Firefox for Windows, or Adobe xyz, what GUI/language should I use?
Is the 'professional sheen' or smart look and feel 100% down to the designers or is it the case that, no matter how good a designer is, picking the right GUI framework is essential to get that look?
There are a few aspects to having a polished UX for a piece of software.
Using the most native framework for the platform. Win32/WPF for Windows, Cocoa for Mac etc.
Application's visual artefacts are coherent - this includes images, graphics, toolbar icons etc.
Following the platforms guidelines and best practices.
It's overlapping a bit with Igor's reply, but here's my take:
Native Control Look - UI controls today have a rather complex appearance. There are many visual cues we instinctively derive from them, and even if it's a white rectangle with some frame, with the wong shadow it looks strangely out of place. A context menu often doesn't just open today, it slides in from some direction, or fades in.
Native Control Behavior - Even more complex than UI, there's a lot of detail to behavior: different context menus depending on click position, different "hot" areas when selecting or dragging items, keyboard shortcuts, etc.
Attention to detail - There's a lot of consistent UI behavior to discover on any platform. Just the way arrow keys work in a tree control WRT selecting, opening and closing nodes.
Just look at Windows: Most non-native toolkits get the basic keyboard navigation wrong - Arrow keys, Home, End, PgUp and PgDown, behavior modified with Ctrl, extending selection with Shift gives up to 32 behaviors. Copy & Paste is traditionally with Ctrl+C/Ctrl+X/Ctrl+V and Shift+INS,Shift+DEL, and missing. Mouse double click often selects a word, mouse triple click sometimes a sentence, line or paragraph.
Response time and Muscle Memory - There are, basically, two UI operation modes:
act-look loop, where you wait for the response before deciding the next step,
playback from muscle memory, which is much faster and requires less mental processing ressources.
There are, however, two requirements for that: response must be uniform and "instant", and the next action must be registered correctly immediately (at least within 10 ms)
Often enough, with non-native toolkits, this gets hard by the response lagging behind one or two actions (the mind locks on the discrepancy), and by toolkits that take 50ms or more to show a menu, in which time a click isn't registered as intended.
A polished UI takes long to get right - A good control library can solve most of the per-control issues, but there's some final 10% taking 90% of the time, and you have control interactions. You have to try different approaches, you have to expect users with FPS-trained reflexes, you have to try all kinds of workflows.
Cross-Platform toolkits can't get it perfectly right - they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: They can opt for internal consistency independent of the platform, or being consistent with platform they currently run on. To get it right, the latter often requires platform-dependent code in the calling code, the actual thing you are trying to avoid.
Always try to use the GUI framework that's used by your desktop environment. .NET's libraries are probably the best for creating Windows apps. GTK+ is always the best on GNOME, while Qt works well on KDE - even though all three work on each other's systems, their visual appeal decreases with their lack of visual integration.
The GUI API/language used is utterly irrelevant to UI design, although some APIs make it easier or fasterto implement.
Good UI is about:
Good graphic design/artwork (visual balance and symmetry, complementary colours, visually 'pleasing' shapes and layouts, visual consistency within your app and with the other apps around it - consistent positioning, sizes, gaps, colours, etc)
Understanding the user's workflows and making what they want to do easy and intuitive. This often means implementing 3 or 4 ways of achieving the same action (e.g. "Copy and paste" can usually be achieved by: main-menu->copy/paste, context-menu->copy/paste, ctrl+c/v, button:copy/paste, drag-and-drop)
Keeping everything simple. Remove as much as possible to cut the UI back to just what the user needs and no more.
Being intuitive and not surprising the user. Controls should look like the controls the user knows, work like the controls the user knows, and be located in the places a user expects given their previous experience with the computer.
Following the conventions (position OK/Cancel buttons in the standard locations, use the OS-defined colours for highlighting selected objects etc)
To get this, you need to look at lots of "good" applications and dissect what makes them good. Get a good artist/graphic designer to draw you good icons etc. And spend a lot of time thinking about the user's workflows.
Make sure you separate the business logic from the UI - this will allow you to re-skin the app easily to improve the UI. And usually the data the program needs is not related to the way the user needs to use the application - don't be tempted to just expose your x,y,z variables in editable fields! UI is the layer that hides your implementation and makes it usable!
I don't care for the way Java application GUIs tend to look using the usual toolkits. If you like the way Firefox looks, you might look into XUL and the GUI framework shared by most Mozilla applications. Komodo Editor/IDE use the same tools (along with several other applications). GTK is very powerful, and I really doubt it is what is preventing your applications from having that professional sheen. Keep exploring it's features, and rethinking the best way to display your components, and I'm sure you'll stumble upon an arrangement that feels better.
On the other hand, it isn't all about the toolkit. Good interface design is an art, and interfaces like Firefox have evolved through endless amounts of feedback. The best thing to do is talk to users and find out what will make them more comfortable using your application. I've found that software tends to look good when it is also functional.
I would recommend spending a lot of time in software that you find pleasant to use. Make notes of the way things are done, and look for commonalities among interface elements. Most software sticks to a pretty common set of principles that make using the software easier, and the more you explore the software you find appealing, the sooner patterns will start to emerge.
Good luck!
I really want to create a stunning-looking GUI desktop application that looks like, for example:
Mac OS X interface
Picasa desktop client on windows
IPhone apps
Office 2007
I've mostly been programming GUI using Qt/Swing/WinForm
and I'm tired of creating so plain looking GUI, lol.
So I was thinking about diving into stuff like:
jQuery
WPF/C#
iPhone SDK
Silverlight
Adobe Air/Flex
Just to get some ideas on how to create really cool looking UI.
Does that sound like a good list? Any developers here that could share what platform they use to create very cool looking desktop app?
On a sidenote, I really wonder what developers at Apple / Microsoft use to develop their own cool-looking software.
EDIT
A lot of responses talk about the importance of usability over "cool-looking"..
I totally agree that usability and simplicity are the most important aspects of user interface design. I've been doing GUI development for a while now (> 3 years), so that I understand.
But using cool-looking UI also improves user experience + it could make big difference on whether or not your software sells.
I mean, otherwise why would Microsoft/Apple try to make their OS UI look "cooler" everytime there's a new version? Why would websites like pragprog.com, or versionsapp.com. make their websites look like that? Basically you kill 2 birds with one stone: stunnning-looking UI + super usability (because it looks simple and intuitive).
That is what I'm striving for. And as far as I know, I cannot achieve that using Qt/Winform. Most of the books I have read just show you how to make average-looking (read: 1990's) UI. I want to learn how to create cool-looking UI. And the only place I see cool-looking UIs these days are the technology I list above. I'm not enamored with any technology; but I just want to know how things are done in other technology to see if I could apply them to the technology I'm using, or see if I could use those technology in my line of work.
An example: if I were to pick between this UI and this UI, I probably would pick the latter, if just based on looks alone.
Functionally, they are just the same UI; they both allow you to keep track of your time. They both contain buttons and textboxes, etc. But the fact that they look different, also differentiate them in terms of attractiveness.
So in all, I think the "ice on the cake" is very important. I would say it's the thing you strive for after you are certain you have a totally intuitive, usable UI.
I think that the major reason many people suck at designing interfaces is that they consider them to be graphic design. It is not. The core of creating a good user interface is a bit like creating a good API – the interface has to be conceptually consistent, hard to misuse, easy for common tasks.
Wanting to design something cool because you are “tired of plain GUI” is a perfect recipe for disaster. If for nothing else then because consistency is a crucial part of a good UI. If each application wanted to stay out of the crowd, the whole thing would be an unusable mess.
It is almost unfortunate that Mac OS X looks that good, because then people start to think you can create a good interface by animating it or sprinkling some graphics on the top of it. The graphical part, the “cool” of the design is just the icing on the cake. If you really want to design good interfaces, stay true to the environment, respect local human interface guidelines. And maybe read Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines to get a feeling where the problems are and what can be done to solve them.
I know this sounds much more boring than filling gradients in Photoshop, but it’s the only right approach to take if you really want to create a top-notch interface.
the key to a stunning graphical user interface is twofold:
it still has to be useful to the users, and that involves a lot of hard work, study, paper prototypes, user interviews, usability testing, et al.
hire a really really good graphic artist
Neither step is optional. If you -the programmer- also happen to be a really good graphic artist, that's fine - but the vast majority are not, and no amount of fancy tools and photoshop tutorials will replace the talent and training that real artists bring to the table.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but most programmers are terrible GUI designers. Myself included. It's ok to leave art to the pros. ;-)
I'm all for WPF/Silverlight, but it really about the platform that you need to support.
The real deal is your own talent, as WPF is a powerful tool, if you ain't got the talent to use it, it will look like improved winforms. (Also check out the Expression Studio from MS - which enhance what you can get out of WPF).
If you want to know more about UI you can read this books:
About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design
The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
UI development is not about technologies. In some cases console is the best solution.
We can get commercial GUI add-ons like Telerik which also supports Mono as well.
Regardless of the UI technology, you will of course be well-served to adopt a programming style where the look and logic of the app are as decoupled as possible. This allows you maximal flexibility to design and evolve the look of your application (the View) while potentially requiring very few code changes in the back-end (the Model or ViewModel).
While possible using all UI technologies, it's particularly easy to execute this in the case of WPF/Silverlight/Moonlight via the MVVM programming style, due to the succinctness of databinding (very little boilerplate "glue" code).
I 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.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
When prototyping initial GUI functionality with a customer is it better to use a pen/paper drawing or to mock something up using a tool and show them that ?
The argument against a tool generated design being that the customer can sometimes focus on the low-level specifics of the mock-up rather than taking a higher level functional view of the GUI overall.
Always start with paper or paper-like mock-ups first. You do not want to fall into a trap of giving the impression of completeness when the back-end is completely hollow.
A polished prototype or pixel-perfect example puts too much emphasis on the design. With an obvious sketch, you have a better shot of discussing desired functionality and content rather than colors, photos, and other stylistic matters. There will be time for that discussion later in the project.
Jeff discusses paper prototyping in his Coding Horror article UI-First Software Development
Click the "Watch a video!" link at twitter.com to see an interesting take on the idea from Common Craft.
The "Napkin Look & Feel" for Java is really cool for prototyping. An actual, functioning, clickable app that looks like it was drawn on a napkin. Check out this screenshot:
Seriously, how cool is that?
I would suggest you sit down with your client and use a tool like Mockupscreens and develop the UI interactively. A benefit it has over Napkin LAF is that it does not require coding, or indeed development tools of any kind
Check out Balsamiq
It does the "THIS IS NOT A FUNCTIONAL APP" napkin view very well and is easy to use.
Has a full featured demo you can try out online and as an added bonus you can email your XML to your client and they can tweak it and play with it and email it back to you without having to have a license.
There is a book called Paper Prototyping which details pen and paper drawing and what you can gain from it. I think it has a lot of benefits, particularly that you can, very early on (and easily), modify what the end result will be without much effort, and then start off on the right foot.
A basic paper version is the way to go for an initial mock-up. It's been my experience that if you do a "real" mock-up, even if you explain to the customer that it's a non-functional mock-up, they are confused when things don't work.
Bottom line: keep it as simple as possible. If it's on paper, there is no way the customer will confuse it with a working product.
For the first draft, I prefer to use graph paper (the stuff with a grid printed on it) and a pencil. The graph paper is great for helping to maintain proportions. Once the client and I have come to a conclusion I'll usually fill in the drawing with pen since pencil is prone to fading.
When I actually get around to building the digital prototype, I'll scan in the hand-drawn one and use it as a background template. Seems to work pretty well for me.
I think it is best to start with Paper/Whiteboards/White walls.
Once you have the basic structure, you can move it to Visio with the wireframe stencils
(Download a Stencil Kit)
(Visio Stencils for Information Architects).
Or you could use Denim (An Informal Tool For Early Stage Web Site and UI Design) with a tablet PC or Wacom tablets to design the GUI and run it as HTML website.
WireframeSketcher is a tool that helps quickly create wireframes, mockups and prototypes for desktop, web and mobile applications. It comes both as a standalone version and as a plug-in for Eclipse IDEs. It has some distinctive features like storyboards, components, linking and vector PDF export. Among supported IDEs are are Aptana, Flash Builder, Zend Studio and Rational Application Developer.
(source: wireframesketcher.com)
I've recenly used a windows App to prototype an application to a customer (the final interface has to be integrated into a website).
At first people thought that it would be the last version and they started to make very heavy criticism from the way controls were displayed to the words I had used (terminology and stuff) and the meeting time ended before we could even discuss the functionality itself.
That discussion dragged on for days and days until I told them that, being a mock (and not a final application) all input is welcome but we had to focus on the functionalities first and then we could move on to look and feel as well as terminology issues.
From thay meeting on I am always terrified of prototypes and mock-ups... Perhaps I should just have given them something made in visio instead.
You can try out ForeUI, it allow prototyping with different styles, what's more, it can make interactive prototype and run it in browser.
For a non-installation browser based tool you can try draft-it
It's free - and if you have a gmail account - no registration is needed.
Makes interactive/Step by Step Or Slide Show- prototypes. You can share your protoype with anyone you choose by just sending a link.
Works for us ...