Quote:
Originally Posted by dtj
I assume that lots of "fit and finish" issues are deferred at this point, instead focusing on the infrastructure and flow.
|
Doubtless there will be some "finish" issues, but more interestingly, I think, there are also some deeper 'architectural' issues in this early draft of the UI design – best caught and dealt with as early as possible, and I think they're planning to do that now.
My guess is that the central problem has been a tension between:
- An understandable desire to somehow converge the design of the OS X version with that of the generally well-received iPad version, and
- an absence of any clearly formulated framework for thinking through the visual implications of ergonomic differences between tablets and larger non-touch displays with keyboards and mice.
That initial unpreparedness can, in part, be attributed to the date. Still relatively early days for thinking about coherence across touch and non-touch media, and Microsoft, with all the professional resources and experience at their disposal, have still been shocked to find that they have pulled a "New Coke" out of the hat …
Tim Cook was fortunately
clearer about the fundamentals:
Quote:
Anything can be forced to converge. But products are about trade-offs.
|
The key problems for this first draft were, I think, regressions (relative to OF1) in:
- Visual effort required to see field structure (iPad typographic segmentation rather than OF1 spatial segmentation), and
- visual effort required to spot the status of projects (state indicator moved to right of text - an analogy with rightward move of iPad checkboxes, which placed them, quite sensibly, in reach of the thumb ?)
I'm sure the next re-draft will focus more on trade-offs that work, (rather than on trade-offs which simply resemble those made in another app).
I also think that a coherent – company-wide – approach to the fundamentals of visual ergonomics is more likely to yield a coherent (and good) user experience.
--