| By Richard Monson-Haefel | Article Rating: |
|
| April 2, 2008 02:45 PM EDT | Reads: |
14,274 |
In his blog post Bill Higgins asserts that the same thing happens in UI design for desktop computing. If you design an application that runs on Windows but doesn’t look exactly like Windows, the effect will be unsettling for users. It’s an interesting use of the “Uncanny Valley” theory but it’s fundamentally flawed. People are not innately accustomed to scrutinizing and assessing the characteristics of a desktop UI the way they are humans and other natural artifacts. The computer UI is a very unnatural thing to begin with, so there is no point of reference from which we can feel uncomfortable. We’ve only been using Windows-based software for about 25 years – its not like our ancestors were using Windows 10,000 BC.
In his blog post, Bill Higgins recommends that people who are developing UIs should avoid the Uncanny Valley by making sure applications on Windows use the Windows L&F and applications on the Mac use the Mac L&F. The fact that Bill is a developer of the SWT, a Java UI framework that uses the native L&F of the operating system, has surely influenced his perspective. The Curl platform, my own preferred UI system, also provides a native L&F for Windows, Mac and Linux – but you can skin applications too. The reasoning is that you can have native L&F or custom L&F depending on your preference.
In defense of Bill Higgins I think it behooves non-designers to stick to an established L&F; non-designers like myself are simply not trained in the design of UIs. That said there is no reason why UI designers shouldn’t challenge the status quote. UI designers should be pushing the UI boundaries, trying new things, failing, succeeding, and in the process advancing the human computer interface. If designers focus on the use of the native L&F of the operating system, rather than inventing new kinds of interaction patterns and L&Fs, than the UI industry is bound to stagnate.
There is one more reason that sticking to the native L&F should not be the end-goal of designers: Application portability. With the introduction of the fit client, applications are automatically portable across Linux, Windows and Mac. Having a different L&F for each platform makes it more difficult for user to switch from using an application on one operating system to another. It also makes applications more difficult to maintain and support. For example, the migration from Microsoft Word on Windows to Microsoft Word (or PowerPoint or Excel) on the Mac is more painful than necessary because the Mac version follows the conventions and L&F of a Mac, rather than Windows.
As a result, everything on the Mac is located in a different location and follows a different UI pattern. It’s not an approach to UI design that I would recommend for people developing cross-operating system applications using Adobe AIR, Curl, Google Gears, or any other fit client platform. Instead of using the native L&F of the operating system – which varies in not just looks but also interaction patterns – fit client developers should find a universal L&F that can be used across desktop operating systems.
This doesn’t mean that everyone should be inventing completely new L&Fs, but it does mean that designers have a unique opportunity today to create L&Fs that transcend the desktop operating system. It’s an opportunity that I hope UI designers will embrace.
Figure 2 (below): The Polar Express & Beowulf

(This copyright notice supersedes the one auto-generated at the foot of this page.)
Published April 2, 2008 Reads 14,274
Copyright © 2008 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Richard Monson-Haefel
Richard Monson-Haefel, an award-winning author and technical analyst, owns Richard Monson-Haefel Consulting. Formerly he was VP of Developer Relations at Curl Inc. and before that a Senior Analyst at The Burton Group. He was the lead architect of OpenEJB, an open source EJB container used in Apache Geronimo, a member of the JCP Executive Committee, member of JCP EJB expert groups, and an industry analyst for Burton Group researching enterprise computing, open source, and Rich Internet Application (RIA) development.
- Why SOA Needs Cloud Computing - Part 1
- Cloud Expo and The End of Tech Recession
- The Transition to Cloud Computing: What Does It Mean For You?
- A Rules Engine Built in PowerBuilder
- Sybase Named “Silver Sponsor” of iPhone Developer Summit
- How PowerBuilder Got Its Groove Back
- The Cloud Has Cross-Border Ambitions
- Ulitzer Names The World's 30 Most Influential Virtualization Bloggers
- Ulitzer Named "New Media" Partner of Greatly Anticipated iStrategy Event in Berlin
- Risks and Enterprise Mobility?
- Steps for Success in Enterprise Mobility?
- Are Mobile Luddites Resisting Mobility?
- The Difference Between Web Hosting and Cloud Computing
- Sybase CTO to Speak at 4th International Cloud Computing Expo
- Why SOA Needs Cloud Computing - Part 1
- Cloud Expo and The End of Tech Recession
- The Transition to Cloud Computing: What Does It Mean For You?
- Five Reasons to Choose a Private Cloud
- Seeding The Cloud: The Future of Data Management
- The Threat Behind the Firewall
- Economy Drives Adoption of Virtual Lab Technology
- Tips for Efficient PaaS Application Design
- A Rules Engine Built in PowerBuilder
- Sybase Named “Silver Sponsor” of iPhone Developer Summit
- Where Are RIA Technologies Headed in 2008?
- PowerBuilder History - How Did It Evolve?
- The Top 250 Players in the Cloud Computing Ecosystem
- Custom Common Dialogs Using SetWindowsHookEx
- DDDW Tips and Tricks
- OLE - Extending the Capabilities of PowerBuilder
- DataWindow.NET How To: Data Entry Form
- Book Excerpt: Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere
- Sybase ASE 12.5 Performance and Tuning
- Working with SOA & Web Services in PowerBuilder
- Office 2003 Toolbar: A New Look For Your Old PowerBuilder App
- Dynamically Creating DataWindow Objects































