[OSX-Users] Charlie Brooker: " Microsoft's grinning robots or the Brotherhood of the Mac. Which is worse?"

[Mike R Poppleton]

"I know Windows is awful. Everyone knows Windows is awful. Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/charlie-brooker-microsoft-mac-windows

Mike


On 26/09/2009 19:02, "Steve Harris" <swh at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

On 26 Sep 2009, at 16:31, Philip Boulain wrote:

> Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2009, at 15:18, Philip Boulain wrote:
>>> Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> I think that's exactly it, MS execs can't tell the difference
>>>> between that youtube train wreck, and the Reality Distortion
>>>> Field, and I honestly believe that they think Windows 7's UI is
>>>> as good as OS X.
>>> Surely that makes the questionable assumption that user interface
>>> "goodness" is a subjective and artistic attribute, rather than
>>> something which can be objectively measured via usability studies?
>> Not really. I didn't use the word "usable". It just implies that
>> not all individuals can make widely believed judgements about
>> "goodness".
>
> The difference, though, is that while car aesthetics may have
> nothing better than individual judgements to go upon (that's the
> claim presented, anyway), user interfaces can actually be evaluated
> experimentally.

 From a usability p.o.v., perhaps, but not aesthetically.

>> To turn it around, are you try to say that the artistic merit of UI
>> design can be quantitatively measured?
>
> No; I'd go on to say it's pretty much irrelevant beyond initial
> impressions (which can have an affect, admittedly). Vim could never
> be accused of being pretty, but it's extremely usable. (I'm sure
> Emacs advocates would say much the same.)

I disagree. I find it genuinely unpleasant to use ugly interfaces. The
vt100, fixed width font thing is fine by me though, it's merely
utilitarian.

> Conversely, "artistic" effort tends to work against usability. The
> new special folder icons in 10.5 and their minor distinguishing
> marks were terrible, as was the reduced drop area in the Finder side
> panel. This very list saw plenty of complaints about the readability
> of the newly translucent/blurred menu. "Artists" are not being
> forced to obey HIG.

I'm not a fan of the transparent menubar, but my point wasn't that
Apple always get it right, or more, that my sense of aesthetics isn't
always in line with Apple's, but I would argue that Apple get it right
more of the time in my opinion.

> (e.g.
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080507112334/http://www.indiehig.com/blog/2007/09/09/fix-the-leopard-folders/
> from
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/4
> )

I think that backs up my point that aesthetics are subjective.

- Steve


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Poppleton, Ph.D.                       email: mrp at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Electronics and Computer Science        phone: +44.23.80597084/4506(sec)
University of Southampton,                   fax:   +44.23.80593045
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ        web:   www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mrp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------