shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) (09/14/88)
I recently had the opportunity to listen to Tony Hoeber from Sun Microsystems speak about OPEN LOOK(tm) (capitalization is correct) and what it is designed to do. I don't like it. I don't like it at all. The goals are good, and some of the problems they address are real, but OPEN LOOK is not the answer as far as I'm concerned. OPEN LOOK is not a windowing system, it is not a toolkit, it is not software at all -- it is a *specification* for the "look and feel" of graphical user interfaces which fully details the appearance and function of the elements of the interface. The idea is that if different applications running on different window platforms on different hardware all have the same "look and feel," then users will be more comfortable and more proficient quickly. While this valid in principle, and OPEN LOOK does provide some good guidelines to work from, it goes too far in specifying exactly what the interface must look like. Scroll bars are a good example. OPEN LOOK specifies exactly what scroll bars are to look like almost at the bitmap level and how they are to behave. The only user preference is what side of the scrolling area the scroll bars normally appear. Now, there are lots of interface toolkits out there which provide scroll bars, and although they all look and behave somewhat differently, the basic concept is the same. I have used many different styles and looks of scroll bars, and while I like some better than others, I have never had any trouble figuring out how to operate them. Switching styles has never really slowed me down. Scroll bars are a little like door handles. There are lots of different styles of door handles in the world but they all have some basic similarities. They are typically a hand-sized object set about halfway up the surface of the door which, when turned, pressed or lifted operate the door latch. If you encounter a door handle which varies too much from what you expect, it might slow you down a bit, but for the most part, variations in door handle style don't pose a significant impediment to productivity. In fact, doors with different purposes can require different types of handles. Can you imagine if the door to your office, your car and your shower were required by law to use the same standard door handle? I object most strongly, however, to how OPEN LOOK has already made all of the aesthetic decisions. Sun hired a graphic designer and he set forth the look of OPEN LOOK. The appearance of windows, buttons, scroll bars, even the colors allowed are part of the specification. There is no room for innovation, no room for creativity. It's like requiring that everyone wear designer clothes from the same designer -- any other style of clothes are "non-standard." Like an other artist, I want full control of my media. OPEN LOOK takes this away. All of this attention on minor details actually fails to address the real issues behind user interface standardization -- that of how a particular application maps into the controls presented to the user. This very difficult issue is still left up to the programmer. Although OPEN LOOK provides some guidelines as to how certain common operations should be handled, at the level of detail at which it's concerned, it cannot hope to address all of the possible needs that an application may have of its user interface. User interface design is a difficult craft often poorly done. OPEN LOOK attempts to address standardization, but instead imposes dogmatic and arbitrary limitations on the interface designer. What user interface designers need is not a standard "look and feel," but rather a careful look at the art of user interface design, perhaps a definative reference work on the subject so that programmers can create their own user interfaces that are clear, simple and attractive. -- Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) Action by HAVOC (shf@Solar.Stanford.EDU)
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (09/15/88)
shf@well writes:
...
I object most strongly, however, to how OPEN LOOK has already made all
of the aesthetic decisions. Sun hired a graphic designer and he set
forth the look of OPEN LOOK. The appearance of windows, buttons, scroll
bars, even the colors allowed are part of the specification. There is
no room for innovation, no room for creativity. It's like requiring
that everyone wear designer clothes from the same designer -- any other
style of clothes are "non-standard." Like an other artist, I want full
control of my media. OPEN LOOK takes this away.
Personally, I think that traffic lights should be set into the
pavement like catseye reflectors, in the center of the lane. There
should be two lights, a blue one first, and then a red one. The
blue light means "stop" (blue=cold=frozen) and the red one
means "go" (red=hot=blazing speed). To warn of state changes,
the blue light would blink for 3 seconds before turning on and
the red (go) light turning off. All cars would have red and blue
taillights. The red is an acceleration light (redshift = going away)
and the blue are brakelights (blueshift = coming towards). See
how neatly the meanings mesh with the traffic lights? Surely
this is true art!
--JoSH :^)zwicky@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (09/15/88)
In article <7099@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >Scroll bars are a good example. OPEN LOOK specifies exactly what scroll >bars are to look like almost at the bitmap level and how they are to >behave. The only user preference is what side of the scrolling area the >scroll bars normally appear. Now, there are lots of interface toolkits >out there which provide scroll bars, and although they all look and >behave somewhat differently, the basic concept is the same. I have used >many different styles and looks of scroll bars, and while I like some >better than others, I have never had any trouble figuring out how to >operate them. Switching styles has never really slowed me down. >Scroll bars are a little like door handles. If switching styles has never slowed you down, then you've probably never used SunView. There's this neat "feature" where it's the button you press, and not the place you press it in that determines which direction you scroll in. Takes me several seconds to figure out how to scroll up. Always. X11 scrollbars have similar peculiarities that interfere a great deal with my ability to use them. You may just be a person who deals easily with new user interfaces, in which case you can afford to be into flexibility. I don't, and I can't. For people like me, who represent at least a significant minority of the population, a basic, consistent interface is not just pleasant, but necessary. Horrible things happen to me in SunView and X. I find my windows magically iconifying, or I scroll off the end of my mail in one leap and can't get back, or I somehow manage to accidentally select a menu item while trying to click on something... I can go back and forth between NeWS and a Mac without killing myself; I suppose it's good I didn't start by learning SunView, or I might be permanently crippled on a Mac, and that would be embarrassing. For that matter, if someone had standardized door handles a little more, I might be able to lock *both* my front door locks. The one in the handle just won't lock for me; I know you have to either push it in or pull it out and turn it one way or the other at the same time, but I can't remember the right two, so I stick with the deadbolt. Elizabeth Zwicky (zwicky@cis.ohio-state.edu)
geoffs@smoke.ARPA (Geoffrey Sauerborn ) (09/15/88)
In article <Sep.14.15.47.16.1988.4838@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: > >Personally, I think that traffic lights should be ... ...(BLUE <stop>, RED <GO>)... The fact that tail lights are red and headlights are white is not a random event. There has actually been a lot of thought put into it. RED is safer than BLUE for stops since it can be seen more easily. (But White is even better than RED for that reason - but that is why it is used for headlights). Physics will tell you that blue (a higher energy frequency) will travel further than red. But a fact of human engineering is that red is more easily noticed by the eye - especially when other light (sun light) is interfering. This is why many police vehicle use BOTH red and blue. Red for Day, Blue for Night. Next time you see a police flashing its lights in the extream distance, you'll see likely notice just the red at first. -- ---> geoffs@brl.arpa -or- geoffs@smoke.brl.mil -- -- ---> geoffs@brl.arpa -or- geoffs@smoke.brl.mil --
seeger@beach.cis.ufl.edu (F. L. Charles Seeger III) (09/15/88)
In article <21787@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> zwicky@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: |I suppose it's good I didn't start by learning SunView, or I might |be permanently crippled on a Mac, and that would be embarrassing. Personally, I'm rather proud of it. I don't understand the one button mice ... how do I do VLSI layouts with one button? Nah, I don't really want to know. Chuck
spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) (09/15/88)
> Xref: whuts comp.cog-eng:640 comp.software-eng:853 > > In article <7099@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: > >>Scroll bars are a good example. OPEN LOOK specifies exactly what scroll >>bars are to look like almost at the bitmap level and how they are to >>behave. ... > > If switching styles has never slowed you down, then you've probably never > used SunView. There's this neat "feature" where it's the button you > press, and not the place you press it in that determines which direction > you scroll in. Takes me several seconds to figure out how to scroll up. > Always. X11 scrollbars have similar peculiarities that interfere a > great deal with my ability to use them. I think that's just the point. While having the "right" human interface be standard is a good idea (see a previous poster's extreme example of traffic lights), standardizing the "wrong" human interface is NOT a good idea. If you can convince me that OPEN LOOK's interface is "right", fine. But (for example), a slider with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book, nor is the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a window. Elizabeth is right about SunView's insane scrollbars - now imagine if they became a STANDARD! Steve Frysinger P.S. I've only begun to look at OPEN LOOK, and it very likely has some excellent points. The few I've cited are (probably unfairly) chosen to point out the pitfalls of premature standardization.
svb@teddy.UUCP (Stephen V. Boyle) (09/17/88)
In article <7099@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: > >(OPEN LOOK) ... is a *specification* for the "look and feel" of graphical user >interfaces which fully details the appearance and function of the >elements of the interface. > Personally, I'm rather happy that Sun has made an effort to produce a style guide. I haven't used a lot of applications on a Sun workstation, but I've used a few, and I find the differences in "look and feel" to be disconcerting to the user and obstructive to effective use of the tool. Specifying a style guide is often a very effective way of ensuring that users of applications developed on a platform can easily switch among applications. The style guide allows people to concentrate on the syntax and semantics of the tool, and not have to concern themselves with the permutation of the interface. In the example of the scrollbars, I concur with the person who mentioned the confusion factor involved with remembering/figuring out how to move up or down in the window; I always have to click the button and see what happens before I can do what I want. I think the door handle analogy is a bit specious since, as pointed out, "door handles" often have to perform different flavors of the same function; I expect a scroll bar to move me up or down through a view, period. As far as a style guide removing the creativity from designing interfaces, I don't believe that creativity is precluded. For example, I don't feel con- strained by the rules of the languages I program in - the rules set out what I can and can not do; my application of those rules is the place where I get to exercise my creativity and engineering skills. I guess my view of OPEN LOOK is that I get a set of design rules that help me make my interfaces more consis- tent for my users - I don't feel overly constrained. The Macintosh has managed to do very well and in fact is often pointed to as an example of how applica- tions can be made consistent on a single machine. This has come about because the Mac has a very specific set of design rules for interfaces. The Mac appli- cations I've used employ different uses of those design rules, and in general are quite successful. "Consistent" does not necessarily mean "duplicate". >All of this attention on minor details actually fails to address the >real issues behind user interface standardization -- that of how a >particular application maps into the controls presented to the user. > >designers need is not a standard "look and feel," but rather a careful >look at the art of user interface design, perhaps a definative reference >work on the subject so that programmers can create their own user >interfaces that are clear, simple and attractive. The above seems to partially illustrate my point. What the style guide provides is "the attention to minor detail" that many interface designers and programmers often ignore. *This* is the level where a consistent look and feel begins. I agree that *one* of the issues confronting UI designers is "how a particular application maps into the controls presented to the user." However, this is only part of the total UI design, just the same as design and coding is only part of the total software engineering process. Designers do need a standard look and feel, as well as definitive references and methodologies to use when creating interfaces. A style guide specifying the look and feel is only one tool that should be available in the UI designers kit, but I feel it is a necessary one. Once designers start using the tools available to them, and as good UI design methodologies become available, then the creators of user interfaces can really exercise their creative talents and begin to move towards true interface engineering. I think this process will make UI design more fun, more interesting, and *less* restrictive, since the human being will be able to apply all of their efforts to the design problem, not to the repetitive common work associated with the task. I skipped a lot of detail here, but this is getting kind of long, so I'll cut it off at this point. -- ... !{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,masscomp}!genrad!svb Steve Boyle GenRad Inc, Production Test Division MS 06, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass. 01742
klee@daisy.UUCP (Ken Lee) (09/17/88)
If you don't like OPEN LOOK, don't use it. It's not the law, it's just
someone's (AT&T's and Sun's) suggestions. On the other hand, most of
the Macintosh's success is based on its "user friendliness". Most of
this ease of use comes from the consistent user interface defined in the
Macintosh user interface guidelines.
I wouldn't worry too much about OPEN LOOK infringing on your (user
interface designer) style. It generally specifies only the most simple
parts of the user interface, such as scroll bars, push buttons, popup
menus. These all have fairly standard semantics in current user
interfaces, so standardizing the syntax isn't too bad. More complex
user interface issues, where the "art" comes in, are left to the
designer.
OPEN LOOK perhaps goes much to far in the window manager/top-level
window area, as this is still a hot topic in the client/server window
system world and still very implementation dependent in the kernel
window system world. Window managers are generally separate from
applications, so this still isn't too bad.
Application user interface designers can count on being employed a
little longer.
Ken Lee
Daisy Systems Corp., Interactive Graphics Tools Dept.
--
uucp: {ames!atari, ucbvax!imagen, pyramid, sgi, uunet}!daisy!klee
arpanet: daisy!klee@sgi.com or daisy!klee@uunet.uu.net
I'm not a tourist, I was born in California.dml@esl.UUCP (Denis Lynch) (09/17/88)
In article <4775@whuts.UUCP> spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) writes: >While having the "right" human >interface be standard is a good idea (see a previous poster's >extreme example of traffic lights), standardizing the "wrong" >human interface is NOT a good idea. The real point is that there is such a thing as "good enough." There is, simply, no "right" user interface. There is a lot of commonality among the good user interfaces that are out on the street now, and almost all programs would benefit from taking the appropriate lessons from what is already "common knowledge." That is the point of Open Look: define a very good user interface that will certainly be augmented over time. This will ensure that good toolkits (or, more generally, development environments) become available so that even simple applications can share this user interface. If the biggest issue you have to worry about is the appearance of scroll bars, you have much narrower vision than a good application developer should. Worry about what your application "means" to users, how it can be enhanced to better fit into more areas, how to make it more robust, etc. Let somebody else worry about the little stuff. >But (for example), a slider >with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book, Which proves my point. Of *course* a slider should only have one parameter. There are other "input devices" that can have more (trackball- or joystick-like; color wheels, etc.) but sliders just have one. >nor is >the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a >window. But how about the Open Look definition, which makes it a user preference where scroll bars should appear? I don't want your application on my system if you decide that everybody else did this wrong, and you are going to save the world. For the things that really annoy people (like button assignments on 3-button mice for lefties, and which side of the screen vertical scroll bars should be on), make it user adjustable. In addition to being the right approach, this happens to be the Open Look approach. Use your creativity for something that will make a difference! -- Denis Lynch ESL Incorporated decwrl!borealis!\ ARPA: dml%esl.ESL.COM@ames.arc.nasa.gov ucbcad!ucbvax!- ames!- esl!dml SMAIL: dml@esl.ESL.COM lll-lcc!/
woods@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) (09/19/88)
I'm extremely happy to see the positive response given to OPEN LOOK.
When it was first described to me (by Bill Joy in his keynote speach at
Unix/etc.88 in Toronto), it "felt" right.
To summarize prvious poster's thoughts, and to state my thoughts briefly
try this:
The artistic and stylistic content of an application should _NOT_ be in
the user interface to the application, but in the use, operation, and
results of the application.
If you waste your creativity building yet-another user interface, you
will likely have a less useful application, and you will probably have
violated any other existing user interface standards.
BTW: OPEN LOOK, though technically is just a specification, there are
also promised implementations for major windowing systems.
--
Greg Woods.
UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, ontmoh!ixpierre}!woods
VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h] LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canadaspf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) (09/20/88)
> Xref: whuts comp.cog-eng:647 comp.software-eng:862 > >>But (for example), a slider >>with only one adjustable parameter isn't "right" in my book, > > Which proves my point. Of *course* a slider should only have one > parameter. There are other "input devices" that can have more > (trackball- or joystick-like; color wheels, etc.) but sliders just > have one. You say "Of *course* ... one" ?? Why? What makes you so sure? What experiments have you run? Why can't you imagine another point of view than your own? Well, the reason I think it should be two is that I think you should be able to adjust both the upper and the lower limits of visibility. Your definition of a slider doesn't meet my needs, and inventing yet-another-widget is not the answer (for me). (I won't even ASK how a trackball or joystick-like widget would help!) >>nor is >>the requirement that horizontal scrollbars be on the bottom of a >>window. > But how about the Open Look definition, which makes it a user > preference where scroll bars should appear? According to "OPEN LOOKtm Graphical User Interface Functional Specification", 7/15/88, "Horizontal scrollbars are always positioned at the bottom of a pane." (pg 7-1, paragraph 4) > I don't want your > application on my system if you decide that everybody else did this > wrong, and you are going to save the world. What are the OPEN LOOK author's trying to do, if not "save the world"? > make > it user adjustable. In addition to being the right approach, this > happens to be the Open Look approach. Not always. See above. > Use your creativity for something that will make a difference! Please remember that I'm not out to bash OPEN LOOK. The world may indeed be ready for a set of user-interface guidelines (though I'm not even sure about this). But no standard should make arbitrary choices. And (so far in my reading of it) the OPEN LOOK seems to include such arbitrary choices. The last time we got a "standard" (this time an operating system) we lost file version numbers for ever. True, standards are voluntary, but the marketeers will likely follow anyone who's willing to lead, no matter WHAT the quality of the product. Steve
nick@hp-sdd.hp.com (Nick Flor) (09/20/88)
In article <7099@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: > >While this valid in principle, and OPEN LOOK does provide some good >guidelines to work from, it goes too far in specifying exactly what the >interface must look like. > What's wrong with this? My feeling is that if the interface specification is based on what has been proven to be an effective means of conveying the functional characteristics of the icons, then why not specify it exactly? Too much freedom of expression for programmers leads to confusion with the users. Nick 'Newton said: "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". The problem with programming, though, is that everyone's stepping on each others toes.' -- (can't remember who originally said this) -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employer's. + + Oh, sure. Sure. I'm going. But I got | Nick V. Flor * * o * * + + your number, see? And one of these | Hewlett Packard SDD * * /I\ * * + + days, the joke's gonna be on you. | ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick * * / \ * * +
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (09/20/88)
In article <1508@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >What's wrong with this? My feeling is that if the interface >specification is based on what has been proven to be an effective means >of conveying the functional characteristics of the icons, then why not >specify it exactly? I don't feel we completely understand the impact of windows, icons, menus, etc.... upon the user to the point where we can definitely say that "xyz" is the appropriate means to display this entity. There have been numerous studies and controled experiments conducted with crt-based user interfaces, but relatively few with bit-mapped display oriented user interfaces. >Too much freedom of expression for programmers leads to confusion with >the users. Quite true! How many systems have you seen where you can determine from the user interface how exactly where in the system a different programmer coded? -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
mkr@kestrel.Philips.Com (Michael K. Reed) (09/21/88)
Yes, it's true that the standard OPEN LOOK sets forth may not be the right one for you in every case. For instance, the scroll bars: Joe Average Programmer doesn't know how/why/whatever to make scroll bars work well, so he uses the defaults. BUT: YOU want to be able to design your OWN scroll bars. Well, GO AHEAD!!! Whats stopping you??? Just write your own scroll-bar-handling code into you program, and specify that the default scroll bar NOT show up in your window. The time will never come when an interface standard will include all the scroll bar types that anyone might like to include in their programs, not to mention all the other variable, so stop waiting... Michael ________________________________________________________________ | Michael Reed !allegra---- | | mkr@philabs.philips.com \ | | AI Department !steinmetz--->---!philabs!mkr | | Philips Laboratories / | | (914) 945-6069 !rutgers---- | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
barnett@mozart.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (09/23/88)
In article <7099@well.UUCP>, shf@well (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >I don't like [OPEN LOOK]. I don't like it at all. > >Scroll bars are a good example. Obviously no interface will ever be perfect. But if, say, Sun ships their system with the Open Look as a default, with a customizable user interface, it should be a minor point. Sun does similar things now. With settings to make their 4.0 version like their 3.5 version. I bet the next release will have both the current SunView, and OPEN LOOK, and have the option to pick the best from both. If you don't like any of them, ... you have to provide your own, or switch vendors. But give the scroll bars a good look. They aren't too shabby. If you just move the mouse somewhere in the scroll bar, you will get a reasonable response. The most likely actions will be to move forward or back a screen, or go to the beginning or end of the buffer. The anchors at the end of the cable sure do indicate to me the beginning and end of the buffer. Clicking on them does the appropriate action. If I move the mouse above the "elevator" and click, I will move up one screen. This is a nice default action, and the "hot spot" is very large; a nice feature for a frequent action. The "elevator" does "bump" the mouse up, which may be a surprise. But it sure makes it convenient for scrolling forward and back pages. Just keep clicking. Now if you don't click on the anchors, or the space above or below the elevator, you must have grabbed the elevator itself. What would you *guess* would happen? Right, you can "drag" the elevator to any position in the buffer. If you want to do something special, like search or go to a line number, the pop-up menu can provide more powerful, complex features to the user. I believe the goal was to provide the most common uses in the most obvious way. I think they have done a reasonable job. It is more obvious than the current SunView version. -- -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (09/25/88)
In article <4786@whuts.UUCP> spf@whuts.UUCP (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) writes:
.not even sure about this). But no standard should make arbitrary
.choices. And (so far in my reading of it) the OPEN LOOK seems to
.include such arbitrary choices. The last time we got a "standard"
.(this time an operating system) we lost file version numbers for ever.
There isn't anything wrong with "arbitrary choices". How would you
like it if every videocasette you bought was a different size? Or if every
traiffic light used a different color for "go"? Certain things are better
standardized for consistancies sake regardless of the number of equal
alternatives available.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dcpalmer@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu (mark palmer) (10/04/88)
I have been reading the discussion on the newsgroups about user interface standards brought on by OPEN LOOK (tm) and have become professionally curious. I have inferred that it is a document of some sort and I would like to obtain a copy. How? thanks if you help Mark R. Palmer 10521 Research Drive palmer@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu Suite 100 Knoxville, TN 37932