[QUOTE=Craig;29144]Pointing this out because I think it's easily overlooked: default fonts and colors can be changed by choosing Format > Font > Show Fonts (or just Command-T). I abandoned Omni's Helvetica a long time ago, and I recently reinstated the italicization of blocked actions that they just removed. Colors are easily changed from that same panel. Control isn't complete nor completely satisfactory, but the user can change more of the look than some users may realize.[/QUOTE]

thanks for this - it was indeed overlooked and has made a big difference - though as you say it is a little incomplete it is nonetheless something and more than this user realised :)

deb

[QUOTE=Toadling;28965]I'm curious where you're taking this.

Personally, I've been on a Mac, almost exclusively, for over 20 years.

Does that make one more likely to prefer "whizbangery" or less likely?[/QUOTE]

My initial reaction was that it implied that if one were a long-term or "prior-life" WIndows user, one would be more inclined to look at bad software UI as good, in direct contrast to most Mac users -- esp long-term Mac users -- who are not only used to but demanding of extremely high quality UI.

Was I wrong?

[QUOTE=dashard;31778]My initial reaction was that it implied that if one were a long-term or "prior-life" WIndows user, one would be more inclined to look at bad software UI as good, in direct contrast to most Mac users -- esp long-term Mac users -- who are not only used to but demanding of extremely high quality UI.

Was I wrong?[/QUOTE]

I agree with your assertion. Judging from the state of Windows software (and hardware, too, I guess), that audience clearly places a lower value on usability and design. I'm frequently amazed at what they're willing to accept, or even tolerate, particularly in the corporate world. Sheesh, I've never seen a worse collection of clunky apps anywhere else! Usability is certainly a low priority in my office.

By the way, if you've never read John Gruber's [URL="http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows"]Broken Windows[/URL], I highly recommend it. It deals with security issues on Mac and PC platforms, but the theory could similarly be applied to UI design.

Anyway, my initial question was more concerned with "whizbangery" (i.e. flamboyant interfaces, often with gratuitous animation, that lean toward style over substance or pizzazz with little practical use - apps that some have dubbed "Delicious Generation"). An app that employs a significant degree of "whizbangery" does not necessarily have a better user interface than one that strives to be straight forward, clean, simple, or understated. In fact, I personally prefer a UI that strives to stay out of the way.

So my question was, are long-time Mac users more likely to prefer "whizbangery" over an understated (but not necessarily bad) user interface?

I suspect that recent switchers, particularly young or casual users, are more likely to prefer flamboyant interfaces than long-time Mac people, but I could be wrong.

Fancy icons and play buttons don't make for good design. It could use a dash of color, but basically, OF is about GTD not GPD (Getting Pretty Done).

BZ

I want to "Get Things Done" not be distracted by pretty colors and fancy icons.

Simpler is better. Minimalist is ideal for productivity, and this is a productivity app.

Keep it the way it is, it's perfect. Just enough color and design to say "Modern Applications" but not enough to take away from what it's really there for, to work more productively.

I don't need fancy toys to play with, I need to get work done.