Originally Posted by dashard
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?
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 Broken Windows
, 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.