[besson3c]

Why does a critique of an interface design often involve how an interface *looks*? Yes, a nice looking interface can provide a good user experience, but whether you like brushed metal, Aqua, the dark or light unified toolbar look, or anything else, this is pretty subjective. They each provide visual cues and can be use to communicate a message, but I think this is often overlooked in our discussions here with simply "it looks nice/bad".

I would love to have some actual usability discussions in here... there are several on skinning and GUI modifications and stuff, but very few on actual usability.

Would anybody else here (other than James, who would not be in it for the discourse, but to tell us all how it is) be into some discussions like this if I were to create some threads like this?

Here is something for starters that is connected to the skins: do you think that GUIs like the new iTunes, Quicktime, or Mail provide good visual cues for where you can click/drag the window to reposition it?

[tooki]

I'd be interested in it. But I don't see it happening here, the trolls and half-wits will doubtless come out of the woodwork as they always do... :sigh:

tooki

[TETENAL]

The problem with discussing user interface design is that everybody has an opinion, but nobody has any data from user testing. So eventually everybody has to resort to name calling.

Anyway, the look of the user interface is discussed often because it's an important property. It's just more pleasant to look at something attraktive. I don't have any hard data (so you know what I gonna do if you disagree with me), but I'm sure that perceived attractiveness has a significant influence on the usability of a user interface.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The problem with discussing user interface design is that everybody has an opinion, but nobody has any data from user testing. So eventually everybody has to resort to name calling.

Anyway, the look of the user interface is discussed often because it's an important property. It's just more pleasant to look at something attraktive. I don't have any hard data (so you know what I gonna do if you disagree with me), but I'm sure that perceived attractiveness has a significant influence on the usability of a user interface.

Right. As I said, an attractive interface enhances the user experience. What I was trying to say was, we rarely talk about what brushed metal or aqua actually communicates, and it always seems to come back to our subjective opinion of whether brushed metal is prettier than the unified toolbar, etc.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c

[W]w rarely talk about what brushed metal or aqua actually communicates, and it always seems to come back to our subjective opinion of whether brushed metal is prettier than the unified toolbar, etc.

Probably because brushed metal doesn't really communicate anything. The Safari team even admitted that brushed metal was chosen just because it looked better. Apple released some half-baked post facto rationalization for when to use brushed metal, but I doubt anybody took that seriously.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Probably because brushed metal doesn't really communicate anything. The Safari team even admitted that brushed metal was chosen just because it looked better. Apple released some half-baked post facto rationalization for when to use brushed metal, but I doubt anybody took that seriously.

Brushed metal communicates what parts of the window are draggable (to relocate the window). Basically, the metallic parts are draggable. In pre-unified toolbar Aqua, only the titlebar was draggable.

Anything else that metal communicates would probably fall under the category of user experience. Metal is a familiar texture (Aqua is not).

[Kevin]

A GUI should be a shell around the content. And should not DISTRACT from the content.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Interface is more about how something works not looks.

[tooki]

That's absolutely not true. The looks are indisputably a component of the interface.

tooki

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's absolutely not true. The looks are indisputably a component of the interface.

Of the GUI. Not if you operate your computer via the command line or punch cards.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's absolutely not true. The looks are indisputably a component of the interface.

tooki

Indeed. Looks should also not distract from content.

The very first versions of Aqua was horrid because of this.

Atleast they deadened the stripes a bit.

I've always trashed them from the start.

[calamar1]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The problem with discussing user interface design is that everybody has an opinion, but nobody has any data from user testing.

The thing is, data from user testing can be twisted to evil purposes, too, particularly if there's a tendency to reduce it to statistics. i used to work for a major CAD software maker, and lived through a massive UI overhaul. They kept citing a statistic that used a mouse odometer to prove that they moved their mouse less with the new UI as proof that it was better. Unfortunately, that was a pick-by-pick measurement that was entirely ignorant of the way people really used it, both with built-in and user-defined keyboard and mouse shortcuts, many of which were broken or moved somewhat arbitrarily. Trouble is, it takes a lot of time, a lot of trial, and a ton of error (in other words, you have to publicly screw up sometimes) to refine an interface. The thing that Apple mostly does right (and I strive to emulate in my own software) is to keep simple things simple, and that's a good start.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kevin

A GUI should be a shell around the content. And should not DISTRACT from the content.

It has been proven how a system that provides a user with a good user experience can make a user more productive, and happier to work in this environment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It has been proven how a system that provides a user with a good user experience can make a user more productive, and happier to work in this environment.

Right.. so you are agreeing with me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Right.. so you are agreeing with me.

So, if we went back to System 7 style windows (thereby not being distracting), would that be ideal?

[Kevin]

I think OS X is fine now. With it's subdued stripes.

I even hacked those out. That and the brushed texture.

I also can't use the colored version. That is just my preference.

A gui can look cool, and not distract from the content.

Platinum is a great example.

OS X next GUI however needs to have drag-gable borders like Platinum had.

[budster101]

What is so distracting with OS X? I hardly pay attention to it, I just do my work, and since I'm only a recent switcher to the Mac OS. Used OS 9 briefly at work, but only began to use OS X upon switching personally, it was more than welcome to me after surviving Windows for over a decade. If you want a useability nightmare, then by all means, use Windows. It's more distracting because of it's constant interupting the user with popups and prompts not related to the current task being attempted. It chooses when, not you, and I find that irritating beyond reason. Put your OS X box aside for two weeks and use a Windows computer, and you may change your mind about the OS X interface.

Every so often I get the opportunity to work on a PC/Windows computer and it's practically nauseating.
I guess you can call that a distraction.

[Hawkeye_a]

I havent studied User Interface designs, but am fairly interested in the subject and have done some research into it.

I think when it comes to computer, it is rather chaotic cause well...it's the new medium, the medium of the day, and its still growing and evolving, so the definition of the right and wrong way of doing things hasnt been established.

But when it comes to GUI design..... i look at the transition from command line to GUI. What were the decisions made ? why were they made ? how does it influence interactivity ?

For example....picture urself using a command line, and forget everything you know about the Mac/GUIs. Now try constructing a paradigm in your head to organize information on your computer that people can understand. The idea of a 'button' itself was huge imo.
What do buttons look like ?
Where should menus be located ? top of the screen or top of the windows ?
How do you represent a directory structure to non-technoical users ?
What happens (or rather what should happen) when a user deletes something ?
What are the widgets used in the UI ? buttons, windows, menus, dialogues, icons, etc,etc,etc....what are the rules that govern each ? (bear in mind you are moving from command line to GUIs...most of these questions were not answered).
How are the menus organized ? what functions should be put into the menus as opposed to dialogues/toolbars ?

So far i have only addressed what users 'see' on the screen. UI would involve the keyboard layout, the 'mouse', etc... should a numeric keypad be on a keyboard ? (Something jobs was against). Function keys on the keyboard....how did they come about and why?

The idea of the GUI evolved(PARC, etc)...but actually harnessing it and defining it and making it intuitive(the hard part) was done at Apple i beleive. There's a heck of a lot of research and testing involved before a company can put something that revolutionary out.

And .... i have to state that....inverting the colors of the pointer, and renaming the trash can to the 'recycle bin' dosent classify as research and innovation. basically they stole the research and testing that apple spent time and money doing, changed the names and colors, and said they didnt copy. Thats BS. The fact that they used a GUI is no big deal, but there's hardly any difference in the paradigm they used. their menus were at the top of the windows(why not at the side or the bottom? someone took time to figure that out, and they just took that research and used it for themselves) trach-> recycle bins. Folders and files and the way they are organized. Heck they even copied the 'look' of the UI (the shape of folder icons, etc).

I beleive reseach is being done right now to move GUIs into 3D. a fully 3D accelerated desktop environment. We dont know what it will look or feel like... we dont know what questions to ask or what the answers 'should' be. Thats the tough part. Define the design. the pieces needed for the implementation are already in place....OSX , Quartz Extreme, etc.

And since we're talking UI in general...i guess i should mention Nintendo(not looking to start a flame war here). Interactivity has always played a huge part in gaming... and things like the 'D-pad' or the analog stick or triggers were never around. Someone had to figue out they were needed, where they would be used and if it would be easy for users to comprehend....thats where a lot of time, money and effort go. Then obviously you have everyone else duplicating that research and ideas.

I think Apple is developing a fully 3D UI for computers. how it's gonna work, i dont know, what are the 'rules' that are gonna govern it....no clue. But everything we have right now in OSX points to that being the next step imo.

Cheers

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by budster101

What is so distracting with OS X? I hardly pay attention to it, I just do my work, and since I'm only a recent switcher to the Mac OS. Used OS 9 briefly at work, but only began to use OS X upon switching personally, it was more than welcome to me after surviving Windows for over a decade. If you want a useability nightmare, then by all means, use Windows. It's more distracting because of it's constant interupting the user with popups and prompts not related to the current task being attempted. It chooses when, not you, and I find that irritating beyond reason. Put your OS X box aside for two weeks and use a Windows computer, and you may change your mind about the OS X interface.

Every so often I get the opportunity to work on a PC/Windows computer and it's practically nauseating.
I guess you can call that a distraction.

OS X now really isn't. It was in 10.0

Those stripes..

And now even with the bright colors. Maybe I am just easily distractible.

I don't want to be reading something, and then get my eye attracted to the pretty red glowing globs pulsating at me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I think when it comes to computer, it is rather chaotic cause well...it's the new medium, the medium of the day, and its still growing and evolving, so the definition of the right and wrong way of doing things hasnt been established.

I don't think there ever will be an agreed upon "right" and "wrong" way. Designing an interface isn't too far removed from designing anything else. Look at doors for example... all of these years and we still haven't perfected the door. How many times have you pushed a door open at the wrong end? How about pushed instead of pulled, or vice versa? How do you know how hard to push/pull a door, whether there will be a vacuum to fight against?

The point is, there are no rules except to try to be empathetic to the user's needs. Like in art, rules are constantly broken. However, it still doesn't hurt to study an accepted theoretical representation of something, just like it can only help musicians to learn music theory.

But when it comes to GUI design..... i look at the transition from command line to GUI. What were the decisions made ? why were they made ? how does it influence interactivity ?

It might have been completely arbitrary to make the File menu the menu furthest to the left. However, as a designer, it is best only to break from this tradition only if you have good reason, as putting your file menu in the upper left corner of your window/screen leverages a familiarity and expectation users already have.

It's going to be very hard to break away from these sorts of traditions and expectations, and surely the masses will complain at having to learn something new.

And since we're talking UI in general...i guess i should mention Nintendo(not looking to start a flame war here). Interactivity has always played a huge part in gaming... and things like the 'D-pad' or the analog stick or triggers were never around. Someone had to figue out they were needed, where they would be used and if it would be easy for users to comprehend....thats where a lot of time, money and effort go. Then obviously you have everyone else duplicating that research and ideas.

The gaming industry is actually leading the charge in innovative HCI. They are constantly coming up with new and innovative ways to represent the digital likeness of something, or to find new modes of interaction and express ways to communicate a message.

I think Apple is developing a fully 3D UI for computers. how it's gonna work, i dont know, what are the 'rules' that are gonna govern it....no clue. But everything we have right now in OSX points to that being the next step imo.

The problem is, the screen/frame used to represent this 3D information will be 2D for many years to come. I think that 3D GUIs will coincide with 3D displays, and other entertainment forms that address conveying depth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kevin

OS X now really isn't. It was in 10.0

Those stripes..

And now even with the bright colors. Maybe I am just easily distractible.

I don't want to be reading something, and then get my eye attracted to the pretty red glowing globs pulsating at me.

So the question becomes, is it better to develop a sexy interface that provides a great user experience, or a UI that is completely streamlined for productivity where the GUI is far more subdued and is sort of transparent?

This is where the X11 world has its benefits. If you want an extremely customizable GUI that is tailored to the way you work, you can choose from a handful of window managers that can be customized to help provide a highly productive and efficient working environment for an individual.

[budster101]

This interface is quite intuitive and easy to use for the most novice of users, and more advanced users can use 3rd party products to change the look with 'themes'. That in my mind is the best interface. Unlike Windows which seems to actually fight the user at every turn, and force them to do things the OS should do on it's own transparently, like OS X.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

This interface is quite intuitive and easy to use for the most novice of users, and more advanced users can use 3rd party products to change the look with 'themes'. That in my mind is the best interface. Unlike Windows which seems to actually fight the user at every turn, and force them to do things the OS should do on it's own transparently, like OS X.

Could you provide some examples as to what makes the interface intuitive and easy for the most novice of users, and what makes Windows difficult? Just find this a little vague, but I'm interested in what your experiences have revealed.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't think there ever will be an agreed upon "right" and "wrong" way. Designing an interface isn't too far removed from designing anything else. Look at doors for example... all of these years and we still haven't perfected the door. How many times have you pushed a door open at the wrong end? How about pushed instead of pulled, or vice versa? How do you know how hard to push/pull a door, whether there will be a vacuum to fight against?

We have perfected the door. Some designers just keep re-inventing bad ones. Using pull handles on one side of the door and asymmetrical panic bars on the opposite side indicate clearly indicate how it is to be operated. The problem is that many designers don't know these things, and so they make the same mistakes over and over.

tooki

[budster101]

Very few contextual menus. No real need for a right-click button mouse for one. You can reach every aspect of the interface through system preferences with preference panes, and the dock which is by the way, in clear view or can hide and reveal itself with a mouse-over.

Windows keeps things hidden, and it is clearly horrible at managing memory, and the hard drive resources. Within 3 months, most computers running Windows have slowed down due to the registry being messed up, the hard drive fragmented and over used. The UI is not distracting at all compared to Windows, and when you install most software or devices, you are required to reboot. Setting up a network is convoluted, and the usb and other ports constantly have conflicts and need to be trouble-shot. None of these are friendly to a novice user, nor are they necessary by good design.

I've worked on Windows computers for almost two decades and fine that they are just too easy to mess up. Not to mention when one downloads as much crap as Windows Users, they easily mess up their systems with spyware, registry crap, malware, adware, viruses, trojans, and worms. All of which bog down their systems and they think they have to buy a new computer in 6 to 12 months. Nonsense. By real world numbers most Mac users are using their computers trouble-free for 2;3;4; and more years. Why is that? It's the OS of course.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

We have perfected the door. Some designers just keep re-inventing bad ones. Using pull handles on one side of the door and asymmetrical panic bars on the opposite side indicate clearly indicate how it is to be operated. The problem is that many designers don't know these things, and so they make the same mistakes over and over.

tooki

Still, there are so many buildings with fancy designs (e.g. museums) that have had a lot of money put into them, and a lot spent on good designers. I guess there is a balance between usability and art.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Very few contextual menus. No real need for a right-click button mouse for one. You can reach every aspect of the interface through system preferences with preference panes, and the dock which is by the way, in clear view or can hide and reveal itself with a mouse-over.

Just to play devil's advocate a little, you can hide the Start Menu like you can the Dock.

The rest of your post has to do with technical limitations of Windows, not really interface...

[budster101]

But the start menu is CONTEXTUAL.... get it?

Yeah, what's underneath which is just as important as the interface. No, the interface is connected to the underpinnings. Show me an interface that was ugly and the rest was great... for a novice through an advanced user. You won't find a better one than OS X. Now it's your turn.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

But the start menu is CONTEXTUAL.... get it?

Yeah, what's underneath which is just as important as the interface. No, the interface is connected to the underpinnings. Show me an interface that was ugly and the rest was great... for a novice through an advanced user. You won't find a better one than OS X. Now it's your turn.

Right, but the technical strengths and weaknesses of OS X aren't the topic here...

Just to understand this idea though, I thought the Amiga and BeOS interfaces were ugly, but the rest was great...

[budster101]

What makes a good UI is, and that is a big part of it.

Is it easy for a novice to navigate out of the box?
Can you put it to sleep and wake it and continue to use it without rebooting? It should be as easy as picking up a phone and using it. You don't turn your phone off and on do you? Why should you reboot? every time?

This is important for an entire system. Interface and all. This is exactly the topic.

Amiga...Right and... You need both.
BeOS? Right and... You need both.
NeXT... >> the next logical step was: OS X which is the best and my point.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Is it easy for a novice to navigate out of the box?

This is a UI issue

Can you put it to sleep and wake it and continue to use it without rebooting? It should be as easy as picking up a phone and using it. You don't turn your phone off and on do you? Why should you reboot? every time?

This is not.

HCI experts deal with how an interface communicates to its target audience. Often, this involves learning how to represent the digital likeness of something from our analog world, or identifying and leveraging something we are familiar with that can be used to convey something meaningful to us.

This is important for an entire system. Interface and all. This is exactly the topic.

No, it's not. This is not what HCI and UI critique is about.

[budster101]

So what is your point. OS X has the best UI...

Show me a better one and tell me why.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Still, there are so many buildings with fancy designs (e.g. museums) that have had a lot of money put into them, and a lot spent on good designers. I guess there is a balance between usability and art.

That's my entire point. What counts as "good" in the design field is typically aesthetics. Usability isn't even on the radar. Most designers are basically trained as artists, not interaction engineers. And many of them, with the typical artist mindset, ignore that training even if they do receive it.

tooki

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

So what is your point. OS X has the best UI...

Show me a better one and tell me why.

Budster, read the damn thread. This is not a question of which UI is the best. Geez.

[budster101]

1.) Where does the UI in Windows get in the way of easy use?
2.) Where does the UI in OS X get in the way of easy use?


You can stop at 20 if you are going to need time to answer the second question...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's my entire point. What counts as "good" in the design field is typically aesthetics. Usability isn't even on the radar. Most designers are basically trained as artists, not interaction engineers. And many of them, with the typical artist mindset, ignore that training even if they do receive it.

Architectural designers, maybe... I see your point.

What has been your experience in the software design field? To me, it seems like there is a disconnect between computer scientists and users, and HCI experts are the bridge to connect these two groups.

This is probably a very simplistic and incomplete perspective, but...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

1.) Where does the UI in Windows get in the way of easy use?
2.) Where does the UI in OS X get in the way of easy use?


You can stop at 20 if you are going to need time to answer the second question...

Please stop hijacking this thread. Obviously, you are uninterested in discussing this subject, so why hang around?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Architectural designers, maybe... I see your point.

What has been your experience in the software design field? To me, it seems like there is a disconnect between computer scientists and users, and HCI experts are the bridge to connect these two groups.

This is probably a very simplistic and incomplete perspective, but...

I think you are absolutely correct. I believe that VERY few computer scientists/programmers are even mediocre UI designers -- usually, they're damned lousy ones, even.

tooki

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

I think you are absolutely correct. I believe that VERY few computer scientists/programmers are even mediocre UI designers -- usually, they're damned lousy ones, even.

So, as a bridge between these two communities, how can their be rules when the needs and experiences of the users are constantly changing?

This doesn't mean that learning HCI theory is useless, just that it is foolish to aim for a set of rules that can be agreed upon.


Is there any aspect of OS X's UI you would like to discuss? I'd love to have a good discussion about this sort of stuff. Perhaps now that it is better understood what is generally included in this field of study, it will be easier to have this discussion now?

[budster101]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Please stop hijacking this thread. Obviously, you are uninterested in discussing this subject, so why hang around?

What are you talking about? How am I hijacking this thread? I posted, you responded, remember you played devil's advocate? I posted some more, then suddenly you don't want me to post in here anymore? What's the matter? Can't you answer one of my questions about User Interface Design?

I said that an UGLY UI is mostly linked to Bad Backends / Underpinnings (OS functionality) and you mentioned some ugly but worthy underpinnings. Unfortunately that is quite useless when the UI is bad and gets in the way. You need both. So, I responded that OS X is the best of both, and Windows was the worst of both.

Show me how I am hijacking this thread? It's about UI right? I don't get it. Maybe your thread is not very user friendly and should be rewritten to be more clear.

---

Edit:

This is a thread about a thread that should be started? Just start the damn thread...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

What are you talking about? How am I hijacking this thread? I posted, you responded, remember you played devil's advocate? I posted some more, then suddenly you don't want me to post in here anymore? What's the matter? Can't you answer one of my questions about User Interface Design?

I said that an UGLY UI is mostly linked to Bad Backends / Underpinnings (OS functionality) and you mentioned some ugly but worthy underpinnings. Unfortunately that is quite useless when the UI is bad and gets in the way. You need both. So, I responded that OS X is the best of both, and Windows was the worst of both.

Show me how I am hijacking this thread? It's about UI right? I don't get it. Maybe your thread is not very user friendly and should be rewritten to be more clear.

Right, but we weren't talking about the Windows UI. If you'd like to, we can, but at the time you were harping about the technical shortcomings of Windows, which is not what we were discussing.

Yes, you need both a interface what is well designed for its target audience, and strong technical underpinnings in order to have a successful product. However, this thread was not intended to be about the merits or weaknesses of the technical underpinnings of an operating system, we've had plenty of other threads dealing with technical merits (although if you'd like to discuss how the two are connected, that would be interesting, but they need to be appropriately separated from each other. Windows crashing while sleeping has absolutely NOTHING to do with UI design)

If you'd like to have a discussion about the UIs of Mac or Windows, or how the UI connects with the underpinnings (or vice versa), I welcome your input into this discussion.

[Kevin]

[budster101]

Originally Posted by besson3c

1.) I would love to have some actual usability discussions in here... there are several on skinning and GUI modifications and stuff, but very few on actual usability.

2.) Would anybody else here (other than James, who would not be in it for the discourse, but to tell us all how it is) be into some discussions like this if I were to create some threads like this?

3.) Here is something for starters that is connected to the skins: do you think that GUIs like the new iTunes, Quicktime, or Mail provide good visual cues for where you can click/drag the window to reposition it?

1.) Skinning has nothing to do with Useability, unless you are thinking of how to make an interface less distracting or comfortable for the user to look at while not really changing functionality or placement of the operable components.

2.) Yeah sure.

3.) The 'skins' don't change the visual cues locations, at least for OS X. They may change the shape and colors though, which may or may not be acceptable for the user. Some people are color blind so if one has the same shape but similor color temperature for the buttons then this would be a problem. Take green and red. To a color blind person they look the same. Of course a good UI will include functions to change certain settings for accessability, which an OS such as OS X does very well for colorblind people, those with poor vision, deaf, and blind as well. I do think that Windows also does this well for visually impaired but am not so certain for the blind and deaf. Blind with audio cues, and for the deaf, flashing screens for prompting.

Did you want specific examples?

[besson3c]

[removed oversize image --tooki]

ding ding!

[budster101]

Want to resize that image? It's too big.

I've set up computers for people who were blind, deaf, and had other accessability problems and have never had a problem with a Mac, but for Windows it was convoluted, but my only reference point as I have never used anything but Windows, Mac, and DOS in my life. Unless you count terminals which were textual based only. I used a terminal once that had a thermal printer only attached and no monitor to do research on the internet. Talk about a non-useable interface (almost) I got by. Feedback was done by prompts that printed and my only source of knowing I was online.

Computer Interface Design has come a long way to becoming actually user friendly as picking up a telephone or opening your refrigerator door getting what you need and then closing it.

Handle-Door-Pull-Open-Get-Close... Ever notice how simple these devices look? Nothing fancy there. (Ok sarcasm)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

1.) Skinning has nothing to do with Useability, unless you are thinking of how to make an interface less distracting or comfortable for the user to look at while not really changing functionality or placement of the operable components.

I don't agree. I think that the skin provides cues as to what areas are draggable, changes the sizes of widget targets, and changes the overall user experience.

3.) The 'skins' don't change the visual cues locations, at least for OS X. They may change the shape and colors though, which may or may not be acceptable for the user. Some people are color blind so if one has the same shape but similor color temperature for the buttons then this would be a problem. Take green and red. To a color blind person they look the same. Of course a good UI will include functions to change certain settings for accessability, which an OS such as OS X does very well for colorblind people, those with poor vision, deaf, and blind as well. I do think that Windows also does this well for visually impaired but am not so certain for the blind and deaf. Blind with audio cues, and for the deaf, flashing screens for prompting.

The blind use screen readers (JAWS is popular in Windows), Voiceover is the screen reader just added in Tiger (anybody have an experience using Voiceover with a blind person?)

I don't think that people need to be able to hear to be productive on a computer, although the sounds can add cues and feedback for the visually impaired.

What examples did you have in mind? Did you want to talk about something specific, or just sort of explore the issue of how the disabled interact with their computers?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Want to resize that image? It's too big.

Wait, I thought the forum rules didn't apply to triangles?

[budster101]

I've set up computers for people who were blind, deaf, and had other accessability problems and have never had a problem with a Mac, but for Windows it was convoluted, but my only reference point as I have never used anything but Windows, Mac, and DOS in my life. Unless you count terminals which were textual based only. I used a terminal once that had a thermal printer only attached and no monitor to do research on the internet. Talk about a non-useable interface (almost) I got by. Feedback was done by prompts that printed and my only source of knowing I was online.

Computer Interface Design has come a long way to becoming actually user friendly as picking up a telephone or opening your refrigerator door getting what you need and then closing it.

Handle-Door-Pull-Open-Get-Close... Ever notice how simple these devices look? Nothing fancy there. (Ok sarcasm)

[tooki]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wait, I thought the forum rules didn't apply to triangles?

Wrong answer. Follow the rules.

tooki

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tooki

Wrong answer. Follow the rules.

tooki

Sorry, I was just about to.