Ver 3 Weaker graphic design distracts

[Philip King]

On Friday, 7 January, 2005, Robin Trew said:

>Softer contrasts (less strongly-contrasting edges) would make a
>big difference.  This would apply both to the selection and to
>the toolbar icons.
>

Indeed. I just opened an OO document in 2.x and 3.1 side-by-side and
I much prefer 2.

What's most important to me is my content, and in 2 it is the
content which is highlighted when a row is clicked. In 3 it is the
highlight which is highlighted and my content is less visually
important. The strong edge of the highlight even obscures the top
pixels of the text (at standard setting). This I consider impolite.

In my view, the new arrows and checkboxes are similarly
disrespectful of my content. Where in 2 the arrows are grey - thus
taking a step back from my black text - in 3 they are solid black
and so challenge the content for my attention. The version 2 arrows
also match the standard MacOS X Finder arrows and so my mind is not
required to accommodate separate models and comprehension is thus
streamlined.

>Removing (or making optional) the unusual curved corners would
>also deal with a source of distraction.

The model being followed here is that used in iCal, but the
situations are not the same. iCal is dealing in modular data where
visual distinction, differentiation and grouping are key to instant
understanding of the data, but the content entrusted to OmniOutliner
may or may not be similarly modular. The flow of the content, or the
overall structure are often superior concerns to those of unitary
separation.

The purpose of a highlight is to /highlight/, not to overwhelm. One
of the things Apple's UI designers understand very well is that less
is very often more. What we have here is a case of more being (in my
humble opinion very definitely) less.


- Philip


-- 
KING GRAPHICS

PHO: 020 7735 3494
MOB: 079 4133 5103