The Death of UI Consistency?
on 04.12.07, 07:48am in software • share on facebook • comments (4)
[Andrew Shebanow] The reason, I think, is that the goal of a single, consistent platform look and feel, as espoused by John in the quote above, is dead. Long gone. Apple never really achieved this even in the good old days (remember HyperCard? FileMaker?). And looking at Apple’s own applications that ship with a new Mac shows that things have only gotten worse. Its always been a case of “do as I say, not as I do”, and never more so than today.
But I don’t blame Apple or Adobe for the death of the goal. What really killed that goal once and for all was the web. Where once there were only a few popular Mac applications that broke with convention, on the web look and feel consistency isn’t even on the list of things to worry about. YouTube and flickr look and work completely differently. Users today have been trained to expect a different set of UI conventions from every web application they use, and they aren’t complaining about it.
To see someone take this stance and claim that UI consistency is dead and something you shouldn’t strive for, makes me sad.
So it goes.
Andrew Shebanow (April 12, 2007 @ 11:46 am)
I am not a number, nor I am a major application vendor. I’m an engineer who works at a major application vendor and has a blog where I post *my* personal opinions. Please don’t confuse the two.
Steve (April 12, 2007 @ 1:23 pm)
I’m going to update the post, because this, as you point out, isn’t an official position, but yours as a blogger who works there.
But, it still makes me sad.
jimmy (April 12, 2007 @ 2:00 pm)
I always think its funny that anyone can assume that their set of controls will work for all kinds of applications.
The shell team did this back in Win95, supported by the user team, and came up with controls which worked OK for doing file manager, and less OK if you actually want to do something nice (like a check list box). “Nothing in their architecture precluded it”, but then again, they didn’t make it easy for ISVs to just ‘do the right thing’.
Just look at any standard slider – the slider has no concept of context, and is thus lame and generic; a slider which slides contrast should have a thumb which shows contrasty information when you slide it, similarly one which show hue, shows something else. But no, to get this look, you roll your own from start to finish.
Now amount of ’standardization’ will get you a platform which allows applications to innovate, and delight the customer.
Just look at, say, any website which uses flash – they delight the customer by the fact that they are unique, and engaging. I don’t consider them to be ‘jarring’, just the same what that I’d rather NOT have whizzy 3D jooming buttons on my text editor – just no need.
Grant Hutchins (April 12, 2007 @ 11:13 pm)
When two applications have interfaces that are not consistent, the inconsistencies are part of the context that allows the user to realize which application they are using. If all applications were identical in their appearance and user experience, then those people who did not prefer that one mode of UI would be left out. Additionally, all users would pay a cognitive price when they have to use cues other than inconsistent interface to realize which application they are using.
So my argument is definitely against consistency for consistency’s sake. I understand the value of consistency, but please do not be dogmatic about it.
Thanks for bringing up this point of contention. I am very passionate about it and strongly word my opinion but please realize I mean this all in a good-spirited way.