Archives
What makes for a beautiful UI?
From 1999-2003 I worked on the AIM
Windows client, from 2003-today I work on the IM engine, which is what the
Triton UI team uses. Back during the AIM
3.0 days we were still supporting win 3.1 and getting ready for WIN
Me and WIN 2k. Since we were stuck supporting really two and
almost three generations of Windows OSs, our UI ended up looking very dated.
This week I mentioned how Joel Spolsky gave out grades on technology products that have come out since the last ETech conference in 2005. The first grade he handed out was for the Motorola Razr. In the previous year, Joel gave Motorola a failing grade in all categories like function, appeal, and aesthetics. Motorola has really gone out of its way this year to improve aesthetics and appeal, however, the function of the Razr is still iffy. He said the dial pad was a little soft.
Later on, he got to Yahoo.com, and gave it failing grades across the board. Of course when he compared it to Google.com, of course Yahoo is going to look clunky, complex and hard to use. This got me thinking about what makes for a beautiful user interface, whether it is for a web page or a client application.
Before AOL, I went to Syracuse
University, where I originally
thought about being an architect. I
worked in an architecture firm in high school, and spent one year studying it
at Syracuse. One of my favorite classes was architecture
history. That class taught me how to
appreciate beautiful buildings and structures from all different eras, whether
it be the pyramids of ancient Egypt,
or the Sears Tower
in Chicago. So where am I going with all of this,
basically, I think we should all start thinking of UI design much like an
architect thinks about designing buildings: Clean, straight lines, where surfaces
seem to flow together nicely. As always
with art, architecture, or user interfaces, what people like seems to be
personal preference. I would love some
comments on the analogy that I propose below…
Old AIM clients were like the Willard Hotel in DC...very chunky and parts jutting out...
but really we are trying to get to a streamlined look...more like the Seagram's Building in NYC...
Are we there yet...hmm that is open to opinion,
though I think we are definitely headed in the right direction
(especially with the IM window).
gregsblog at 4:16:00 PM EST Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
The UI is in the right direction when it comes to color scheme, but you need to be minimal. Compact everything as tight as possible, no more shadows around the boxes. In fact, every place that where the shadow starts is where the size of the window should be. Its kind of wierd seeing a floating box inside of a floating box.
-
UI is something I've grown obsessed with in recent years. Triton seems, in my opinion, to actually be going in the wrong direction. With respect, I make the following points:
1. The shadows beneath different elements in both the IM window and Buddy List are simply too large. I can see why you went with shadows. The color scheme used in the application makes it hard to cleanly break sections apart, but the harshness of the shadows is a problem. They should be shrunken down a good 20% - 30%, especially on the bottom.
2. The recent addition of "glossy" controls is definitely a design problem. The base theme revolves around gentle gradients and transitions. The highly glossy buttons stand out too much and seem to work against the rest of the design.
3. The toasters still look horrendous. The don't look like they even belong to the application. They should contain the same color scheme and UI elements and also be shrunken down a bit. There is simply too much wasted space. If need be, I can always draw up a mockup to show you what may be a better idea to go with.
3/13/06 1:39 PM