Graphic guidelines for the next release

[Michael Terry]

On Friday, January 07, 2005, at 10:40AM, Robin Trew <robinfrancistrew at mac.com> wrote:

>Hi Michael,
>
>I'm sure you're right - as you've seen from the newsgroup, some have 
>shared my regret at the visual foregrounding of the program itself, 
>while others have not been bothered.

Ah, right. I hadn't seen that thread for technical reasons too boring to go into here.

>The most distracting for me is probably the two high-contrast edges 
>(inner and outer), plus the rounded corners (unusual and therefore 
>visual "marked" or noticeable) of the blue focus line around the active 
>item.

So, is there some good scientific basis for this distractibility: Rounded corners are absolutely worse for some reason? Or is it relative: It's worse because it's unexpected compared to what came before?

For me, the rounded corners are what I think of as "cool". They make no functional difference in my use, so I'm inclined to like them for that reason alone. Wherever possible I prefer cool things to not, which is partly why I use a Mac.

>Next, the full-black check-box, 

I've noticed the complaint that Omni didn't use the aqua checkboxes, if that's what you're referring to, but that argument seems weak to me. Actually, I'm quite sympathetic to the notion that developers should adhere to interface guidelines, but I'm distressed that this adherence might overwhelm good sense and innovation. It seems rather like preferring rule based Utilitarianism to act based Utilitarianism. I don't care how checkboxes look as user interface widgets in other programs, so I think it's good they follow the rules for consistency's sake. But in Outliner, the checkboxes' look actually affects my enjoyment of the program. The aqua checkboxes are too hefty; they weight the document down. They draw attention to themselves that they don't deserve. I'm persuaded by Omni's reasoning that the checkboxes are part of the document's content, as they've always seemed that way to me. No matter how small you make the aqua checkboxes, they still look three-dimensional, so they jump off the page. For an object that's meant to be printed in some cases, this is one unnecessary, out-of-place dimension too many.

>the pixel bleeds on the Bold plus 
>Underlined column heads

I suppose if I'd been trained in computer graphics I might have a different sensibility. To my untrained eye, the column heads look cool too. Although I must admit that I dearly love brushed metal interface elements, so my taste may be suspect. 

>and the increased contrast levels of the 
>toolbar icons.

Ah. Yeah, I agree with that, but I always turn off Outliner's toolbar. The icons are too big. Application toolbars suck in general 'cause it's too hard to remember what some little icon is supposed to do, and if it's big enough to be truly representative, then it takes up too much space. If I use it enough, I learn the keyboard shortcut anyway.

>Shall we keep this to the newsgroup incidentally ? I don't always check 
>this particular inbox.

Your wish is my command. ;)

Michael

------------------

>Best wishes,
>
>Robin Trew
>
>On 7 Jan 2005, at 17:55, Michael Terry wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 06, 2005, at 12:38PM, Robin Trew 
>> <robinfrancistrew at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In case too many potential users of Ver 3 find it visually a little
>>> fatiguing, and decide to stick with Ver 2, a useful source of graphic
>>> guidelines for any redrafts is, of course:
>>>
>>> Edward R. Tufte, "Envisioning Information", Graphics Press.
>>>
>>> One useful rule of thumb which it expands on (in relation to visual
>>> contrasts) is that using the "minimum effective difference" will
>>> usually optimize the signal / noise ratio.
>>>
>>> Redundant contrasts, or contrasts which are stronger than required, 
>>> are
>>> pretty much like distracting noise, or excessive volume - they aborb
>>> precious mental resources, and make it harder to concentrate.
>>>
>>> The problem is often, of course, that marketing departments want to
>>> "catch attention", and cry their wares as loudly as possible.
>>
>> Presumably another problem would be determining what the "minimum 
>> effective difference" is for the greatest cross section of people. 
>> What specifically are you objecting to? The folks I've talked to think 
>> that Outliner 3 whomps on Outliner 2.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
>