::scr Ramblings of a Classic Refugee or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love OS X

[celia romaniuk]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, simon wistow wrote:

> The Apple Interface Guidelines were not only there to dictate what
> Macintosh apps should look like, it was there to dictate what Macs
> themselves look like so, that you could sit down at any Macintosh and it
> would look the same.
>
> By customising it you're taking away this albeit by increasing your own
> productivity because it's more tailored to your needs.
>
> Is this  and or a good thing.

Er, that's sort of a complex question.

First of all, while the idea of the Universally Consistent Interface is a
familiar one, I can't remember whether this was an explicit goal of the
Apple guidelines. It doesn't mention it in my copy of the book, anyway.

Now, my knowledge of history is poor enough that I don't know that the
context of when the book was written. But I suspect that now, there's more
awareness of the myriad of interfaces and devices that we use all the
time.

To get to my point, I think that your question revolves around a key
issue: should all interfaces be the same.

There's a good book called 'Information Appliances' that has interviews
with a bunch of people, including a designer from Palm and one from
Microsoft. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558606009/

Basically, the Palm philosophy is that you design the interface
appropriate for the device. On the other hand, MS sez that you should
design for familiarity. Which is why PDAs with Wince on them have a
mini-desktop on them. And windows. I hate them, and love the simplicity of
the Palm.  YMMV.

So there are a few schools of thought on this one. You know where I stand.
I'm not sure what Apple think, but my guess on seeing the iPod is that
they're of the Palm school.

In addition to all that, the modifications Matt mentioned don't really
throw the internal consistency of the interface. Sure, another experienced
Mac user sitting down to use his machine may be confusing, but:
a) if he's experienced his own machine is likely to be customised (as Alex
pointed out)
b) if it's done well he might ask Matt about which software he's using to
achieve it (cf many conversations I've had with Paul about his Macs)
c) how often do we tend to use each other's personal machines anyway? (OK,
I can see situations where you would, but it's hardly that the bulk of our
use happens on other people's machines).

Out of interest, what's the rationale in organisations that have a
consistent desktop throught the organisation. I'm thinking here of the
BBC. My guess was that it would be to minimise learning a new machine
every time you sat down, which would be useful if people in the
organisation moved around a lot. But my SPY in the beeb has informed me
that it's actually because of cost saving: standard software, standard
hardware, lower training, lower support costs. (Though, having said that,
lower training and support may have some correlation with ease of use. But
correlation doesn't equal causation blah blah).

-- 
celia
seesmm quite peacuful to me