But the main question is... why is the fluff so bad? Resource hogging?
I agree on this one. Hiding menus and forcing to use ribbons and such is just annoying. It disturbs the way users have been working with programs for years. When you can't find what you're looking for, you're bound to get annoyed.
Yes, keep is consistent.
However, I don't see the problem with the viewing area. It's big enough to work with, unless you have a really, really low resolution.
Does it eat up 50% of the screen?
Speed is important, of course, but on modern computers, it's hardly (or should not be, otherwise it's a design flaw) noticeable. It will load just as fast as if all the fancy stuff didn't exist.
So why keep such an old computer around? Not willing to part with it?There are plenty of attractive features of many applications that don't detract from the useability. It's when I realise that my archaic PII machines can run a DamnSmallLinux distro and surf the net, play music, display movies, and network with my LAN, at speeds rivalling my spanking new Boxes with 64-Bit Dual Cores and 4 gigs of RAM, that I begin to get irate.
Speed-o-freak! I like thatIt is my profound hope that with the slowing of processor progress in the near future, and Microsofts proclamation to produce a sleeker, thinner, more trimmed down OS, that we'll see application makers finally step up in this area as well. I see no reason at all that my web browser shouldn't open instantly. I mean instantly. I've disabled just about every feature it has to offer (Java, ActiveX, Javascript, Plugins, Sound, AutoComplete, etc), so what am I waiting for exactly?
I'd like to see fancy GUI with no loading times in the future
I completely agree there. Vista had a few nice things, but mostly Aero. The performance of the OS however... sucked.
For one. I already named them; resources, aesthetics, usability,... But mostly, I simply don't like fluff. I can't put it any more simpler than that. I always liked my applications simple, efficient and to the point. It's the way I am, from computers to clothing.
Again is the problem of efficiency. But this time applied to the use of space. The fluff at the top plus the fluff and the bottom together eat up almost 1/3 of the my vertical area. Resolution has nothing to do with it. I'm speaking of relative areas. But if you want to know i'm running at 1024x768.However, I don't see the problem with the viewing area. It's big enough to work with, unless you have a really, really low resolution.
Does it eat up 50% of the screen?
Now, take a good look at that screenshot again. Picture in your head what would happen if all that vertical space was optimized by the use of regular menus and a couple of toolbars. Can you see the tremendous gain in the working area?
The problem is not so much my working area was reduced to a point its unusable. It wasn't. The point is the fluff is stealing working space. For me that's the anti-christ of a good layout.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I did take a look at Ranking Toolbox 6
1. There is a mimimal size of the screen with program could take. And it is 784 pixels in hight - if I reduce the window to the smaller size - the left panel gets the scrolling which takes "hours" to finish. And I saw no way to increase the scrolling speed. Also Scrolling arrows are to small in high, about hafl of the regular hight of the scrolling arrows in the regular scroll-bar - which does not makes easier to target them
2. The toolbar in the top, and image menu-bar in the left, and "Start Center" menu in the right - all show the tooltip in the bottom "Info Panel". I do not feel comfortable to look for "tool-tip" of the current button in the opposite corner of the working Area...
And this are only two greate inconvinincies found just by looking on the main screen - I didn't started the actual work with this tool, and do not plan...
Also - this application does not followes the settings of the Windows - I have disabled all menu delays, and still - it opens submenu with annoying delays
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
There is more to sliding menus, fading popups and rolling windows than just eye candy.
Studies have shown that casual PC users have problems properly processing visual elements that are "just there" suddenly. They try to carry over their notions from the "real" world, where things don't just appear. They might unfold, they might slide in from outside the view area, they might fade away like smoke. But they're not here one moment and gone the next, or the other way round.
Computers don't work that way. By default, everything will just be there and then be gone. There is no inertia on bits and bytes. And this behaviour did not appeal to casual users. It felt unnatural. It scared them, even. Thus, menus slide in, dialogs fade in, and windows fold up and fly into the task bar.
To people who've grown up during the right time - exposed to computers from childhood, but while there wasn't enough power for eye-candy - there is no problem. Neither is there for those who've worked enough to get used to it. But we're still the minority, and Microsoft caters to the majority.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
The question is how reliable those studies are. Because quite frankly I deal with casual users everyday at home, work, and socially, and never even once saw or heard anyone complaining when using my laptop. Quite on the contrary; I've heard a few good remarks.
Conversely my ex-wife just recently switched to Vista after buying a new desktop and calls me every other day to help her locate things or handling things she doesn't know anymore where they are. The new security features alone almost drove me mad during the first week until her hollering over the phone made me go to her place and turn the bloody things off. For 2 years now I didn't have her asking me for help while she was using XP. She has to relearn the whole thing over again.
So I don't know where those studies are coming from, or how reliable they are, or what are the qualifications of those conducting those studies. I've been listening to crap like that for 25 years now. It's the same with too much rice provoking cancer type-of-studies. All I know is that casual users are not being well served. Neither are experienced users.
Let's face it. It's been getting worst.
Last edited by Mario F.; 02-28-2008 at 09:17 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Sorry, Vart. Skipped your post and I think it deserved an answer. Thanks for having taken a look at it.
And to add to all you said, lets not forget this application can be seen as an advanced software intended to be used by mid to advanced users. Mostly web programmers/designers.
Naturally, one can expect the "ordinary" user to have a website built with the automated tools that abound these days. Tools, I might add, that do a terrible job at creating bot friendly websites. But he can't expect to use Ranking Toolbox efficiently because:
a) He won't understand 80% of the results (which are technical jargon or need more advanced solutions than the tools he has been using);
b) He will have trouble navigating through that interface;
c) Not understanding the results, not understanding how to use the application, and not having the technical expertize to optimize his website, he won't be doing anything about it.
So, I classify this tool in the mid to mid-high range of complexity. And yet, it's design is aimed at ... well, I don't even know.
- Retarded? No. I'm not retarded and couldn't understand the application interface.
- Low end users? No. If I couldn't use this application efficiently, how can they?
- High end users? No. They don't like the interface to step in their way.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Come on, just because the interface is "pretty" doesn't mean it's not aimed at professional/high-end users/whatever. You may not like the interface, but you are in minority. Most people do like pretty interfaces, so it is aimed at other people than you. Nothing stops it from doing its work, although perhaps it could have been done better.
And concerning Vista... yes, most tech calls have not been actual operating system problems but that users simply can't find what they're looking for. Such is the price for moving around items where they weren't before.
I can only repeat what I learned in my user interface design classes at the university.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
That is odd. I have learned no such thing. However I took my degree when Windows was in version 3.1. So I can see you having learned different things.
The thing about universities was better described by a former employer of mine that, after having left mine and looking for a full-time job, replied at my second interview: "I.S.T., I see. Fine university, that is... Now, forget everything you learned in there".
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Not completely true. There certainly is inertia on electrons. And changing a bit from high to low or low to high certainly does take time. It just happens fast enough that to our preception it is instant. To a computer or the engineer setting up the circuit that time becomes significant.
EE Majors aren't real people So their perception doesn't count.
The bottom line is that for the more experienced users (especially those of us who started off in the command line only days) we don't like the cutesy fluff offered by the newer operating systems. To back my stance, I provide as an example Windows .Net Server. How many of you run/ran this?
Why was it, again, that M$ said they dropped it for 2003?
Touché!
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.