|
was wondering is there was some kind of Basic ui design principle that someone might have written a blog that follows the line of
Placement: where is control/component placed
Appearance: how does component look. Font, size, color, word wrapping, ect...
Function: what does component do. One thing, multiple things depending on situation.
maybe something with different words?
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is great!
Marc
Latest Article - Create a Dockerized Python Fiddle Web App
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Someone once said that a captialist is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I see a parallell in those "good helpers" whose only contribution is to state "Why don't you just f* google it?" Well, of course! Maybe, a few years from now, those "good helpers" will understand that "just f* google it" is a "been there, done that". A google hit list in itself is just data, it is not information. (There's the parallel to price vs. value!) The asker of course knows that he will get gazillions of "answers" from google, but which of those are good answers? Which are non-info? Which are garbage?
Frequently, when I ask for advice and suspect that some wiseguy will reply with a "Why don't you just...", I add to the question: "I have googled it, using the search terms x1, x2, x3 and x4, but that didn't bring up anything of value. I need more specific references!" - yet, some wiseguys believe that I ask for two dozen new keywords: "You could google for y1, y2, y3... y31" - and quite obviously, the good helper never googled those terms himself before providing them to others as a "solution" to the problem.
It does happen that someone provides good and valuable search terms, or specific links/references, but that requires that I am very explicit in my wording to keep those non-wisdom wiseguys from drowning me with non-information that they don't understand a bit of themselves. All they known is to pick a sequence of possibly (but maybe vaguely) related terms an prefix them with "Why don't you google ...".
Yes, I frequently get frustrated by non-helping good helpers. So I am airing frustration here. I look forward to the day when "Just google it!" is no longer classified as "helping to solve the problem".
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I always (try to) present good (specific)answers on good (specific) questions. He never stated he googled and found answer x or y. He never stated what he figured out for himself. He never stated what technology, what OS, what platform (desktop vs web) he was targeting.
I have nothing against the guy (or girl), but if you ask a general question you will get a general answer.
|
|
|
|
|
He did state some specifics that he wanted to focus on. And, even though he didn't explicitly state that he had googled some over-generalized terms, anno 2017 you may assume that he actuall has done so. He probably has googled even the more specific terms that he mentions in particular. After all, he must be working from a network connected PC (since he can ask the question at CP).
Telling him that we have this great thing called "google" that he might try might have been relevant ten or fifteen years ago, but not today. Today, you should always assume that the asker has tried google first. If you want to refer someone to google, it must be by suggesting some non-obvious and highly specific search terms that you have tried yourself and know that returns valuable information (related to the user's problem) in the first page of hits.
|
|
|
|
|
again, we disagree, but that's fine, it makes the world actually a better place. (if done respectfully  )
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to believe that if you cannot post something helpful, remain silent. Flippant comments are of no assistance to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Moderators,
Can you consider making this the answer to EVERY question?
ROTFLMAO... My new favorite answer.
BTW, V has later responses indicating EXACTLY my concerns. For which Device, Which OS, Which Development language. How do we know they are not working on a Word Macro?
At one point, some GURU was talking web design said: "People need to think in 4D... That websites should change on EVERY VISIT. And present new and different information in new and different ways constantly"
I wanted to find this guy and lynch him... But someone beat me to it (The Market Crash of 1999).
|
|
|
|
|
I think way too often people forget that they can google it. I forget sometimes. When a question is very basic and has no context at all, I think "Did you google that?" is a perfectly reasonable response.
I love the "let me google that for you" page. I started to ask, "Is that something you can find on the web?" But then I realized my question probably contained its own answer, so only answer if the answer is obscure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then, whatever you do: Expect your UI design to be really bad, five years from now  .
I started out with the "Common User Access" specification in the 1980s (published by IBM but developed as a joint effort between IBM, MS and a few other companies). Windows 3 changed a number of the rules, Windows 9x even more, Win7 changed a number of things again, and then came the tile-based Win8, and ...
Often, you must make a decision: You are quite certain that some new UI hype (like mouse gestures a few years back) is a fad that won't last, but today everybody demands support for it. You must choose between the modern (but maybe less functional) look, or a more conservative, tried out design that might look slightly outdated.
What comes out of this is that if possible, you should pick up design guidelines from several UI generations, and pay attention to rules we do not push in the modern designs. Why where they forgotten? Maybe they should have been kept!
Obviously, guidelines provided with justifications / rationale are worth their weight in gold. And if no justification / rationale is given, try to make it up, and ask yourself if you can defend it. I know of a number of rules that I cannot defend; they are just rules that someone stated. Unless someone in power demands that I honor the rule, I feel free to ignore the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
You are quite certain that some new UI hype (like mouse gestures a few years back) is a fad that won't last, but today everybody demands support for it.
Gestures have been around for more than a few years (I first came across them in the early-90s and I'm pretty sure they weren't new then), but the trick, as you say, is to spot what really is a blind alley, and what is going to remain useful and become a cornerstone of future design.
|
|
|
|
|
When I build a UI, there's a couple of fundamentals I use to guide where to put things.
- Order of importance
- Most humans start at the top so the most important data and used functions go there
- Infrequently used elements are put at the bottom
- Match the culture reading direction: some read left to right, right to left, or top to bottom. Controls should match natural text progression.
- Group controls
- If a group of controls displays and manipulates data for a single class of object (or any data), keep them close together.
- Too much data to fit on a single display? Combat this with drill-down functionality such as tabs, popups**, or dialogs**.
- Lead the eyes
- Use borders and colors to naturally lead the eyes to important parts of the UI.
- The use of darker backgrounds with progressively lighter backgrounds around your functional groups.
- Use colored backgrounds to clearly demarcate UI parts the have different functions.
And above all, get constant feedback by those who use it during all stages of development; listen to them and incorporate their ideas into the design (if possible  ).
** Don't use actual popups and dialogs that exist over the top of your app/page. Most users see them as disruptive and annoying. I find the most positive feedback from pseudo-popups that slide/fade in, obscuring your content, in the top visual layer in the app/page.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Woah, a useful post... what gives? 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It's Tuesday and I was avoiding actual work 
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: Lead the eyes
My sole opinion: That is The pillar of good UI design.
|
|
|
|
|
Other good rules:
Default action should never be destructive. (You wouldn't believe how may times I was swearing out loud when switching from an editor asking at exit "You have unsaved files. Do you want to save them?" to one who asked "You have unsaved files. Do you really want to exit without save?" Default: Yes, in both editors!)
Normal termination is at the end of the page - lower right corner (in a left-to-right culture). The lower right is NOT the place for e.g. a "Cancel" button! This rule was firmly established in early Windows UI, but nowadays you may see the "OK" or "Done" button more or less anywhere, and the lower right button may be anything.
Avoid, as far as possible, switching between keyboard / mouse / ... So, provide keyboard shortcuts and a thoroughly planned tab key navigation sequence. (And set intial focus to the field the user will fill in first.) Make use of the mouse keys, menus and other graphic controls so that you can do "everything" with the mouse until text input is required.
Make sure that your UI can handle zooming. This is especially important if you aim at a user group including persons above 30 years of age.
Make at least a minimum of "Universal Access" adaptations. E.g. smear some grease on a pair of glasses and see if you can still read the screen (there is a popular trend in hairline fonts that is very hard to read with smeared glasses). Do not require super-precise mouse navigation. Be aware of differerent kinds of color blindness.
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite design principals.
Keep in mind that someone may have to look at that page/application all day long.
Have pity on them: no more content than necessary; larger fonts and pleasant contrast.
Get the work-flow from someone who's using it. Locate things, and certainly tab order, to take into account how they think makes sense. Usually, they're right, and even if they're not, they'll feel comfortable.
Although I did have to build an application with intense context sensitivity and remapping of component values, ideally, you keep the use of each component to a single purpose. This reduces the learning curve. That doesn't mean, for example, that a picklist's contents can't vary. What it means is that the implications of what you're picking should be obvious and consistent for that particular control.
A few well-thought-out tool-tips where essential. If you did the work correctly they'll not be needed.
Other opinions vary
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
As already noted, there is a (free) ux guide from Microsoft, sporting over 600 pages worth of information. It is not just guidelines, it contains argumentation on why they do stuff that way. Download it, print it, and learn to dream it - a great way to end those annoying discussions.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: here is a (free) ux guide from Microsoft, sporting over 600 pages worth of information.
ummm, didn't microsoft give us metro (or whatever they're calling it today ... but maybe not tomorrow).
Didn't they give us the new Windows 10 looks - plural because not consistent.
jokes aside: that free guide from Microsoft, don't waste you're bloody time, 600 pages of sh*t.
Microsoft have some pretty good software but they've never lead in design, never.
case in point: compare the UX of apple to Microsoft past and present:
... which one looks better?
... no, make that which one has always looked better.
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you should try reading it before you comment.
The UX Guide does not only document some good ideas, it explains the reasoning. Does not mean that the Office-team adheres to it, as some dimwits NEED a new UI to accept it as a "new" product.
I support Microsoft in both decisions.
Lopatir wrote: case in point: compare the UX of apple to Microsoft past and present:
... which one looks better?
UX design has nothing to do with "looking better". And yes, the market has decided with their wallets - the fruit was never to be taken serious.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Skimmed it some time ago, lot of typical boiler plate basic info but really nothing you wouldn't get from the idiots guide (in way less words.)
Their portfolio is out there for all to see, and when it comes to UX it [no pun] 'aint pretty!
Better to ask somebody that demonstrates actual ability rather then paraphrase the obvious.
Beauty queens, six year old kids and clowns all know how to put on make up.
Which would you ask for advice on making yourself look good?
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
