[acquiesse]

bringing 2 ways for doing the same thing is simply not ergonomic, because our brain is designed to save space and memory (back in the past we human were selected to act really fast and to exclude unnecessary information).

I think it is irritating to be forced to do it a certain way. I think that the ability for a user to adapt the program in all respects is the key thing. I guess this is one thing the Rhino people didn't spot... Maybe it will be improved in V4?

[Mihai]

I completely agree, shiny buttons is not what intuitive should mean. Yet this is what happened when intuitive was such a great new thing....

In a nutshell, I'm trying to say don't be afraid of making a user adapt somewhat to a way of working, if that way of working has been thoroughly investigated before, especially by experienced users. This way of thinking would be a no-no if we just look at intuitiveness.

[Boris Ulzibat]

In this case reflectance 0 means we are looking at a "wall" straight on (this is our normal daily way of looking at walls ). In daily life if we look at a surface any other way we feel we look at them at an "angle".

Hmmm. I always think about looking straight-on as looking at perpendicular angle. that is 90 degrees.

[Thomas An.]

In this case reflectance 0 means we are looking at a "wall" straight on (this is our normal daily way of looking at walls ). In daily life if we look at a surface any other way we feel we look at them at an "angle".

Hmmm. I always think about looking straight-on as looking at perpendicular angle. that is 90 degrees.

Man ... there is no hope for you

[Boris Ulzibat]

bringing 2 ways for doing the same thing is simply not ergonomic, because our brain is designed to save space and memory (back in the past we human were selected to act really fast and to exclude unnecessary information). But the problem which design is better still stands...

I just love that in Sony-Ericsson phones there are at least 3 ways of doing anything. even locking keys. I never know which of them will suit me best next time i use it.

[acquiesse]

Hmmm. I always think about looking straight-on as looking at perpendicular angle. that is 90 degrees.

Hence why cusomisation is the way, both opinions are valid, but forcing one person to do it differently is going to irritate the hell out them!

[Thomas An.]

Yet this is what happened when intuitive was such a great new thing....

... that was "intuitive-wanna-be" ... but was not necessarily achieved.

In a nutshell, I'm trying to say don't be afraid of making a user adapt somewhat to a way of working

Well, this philosophy is why Linux never picks up. The expert users are so comfortable with it that they call it super intuitive.

Verdict is: ... "there is no hope for you either ..." ... down to the crocodile pit you go

[jdp]

I think it is irritating to be forced to do it a certain way. I think that the ability for a user to adapt the program in all respects is the key thing. I guess this is one thing the Rhino people didn't spot... Maybe it will be improved in V4?

I know what you mean but the point is to avoid unnecessary routines, to speed the workflow up and to keep the user focus on the content (which is obviously his only concern) instead of the UI.
I think that letting this possibility hidden (it means you can customize the way to achieve a certain task) is way better than letting the user "think" (almost always) that he can do it in 2 or 3 different ways...

[acquiesse]

I think that letting this possibility idle (it means you can customize the way to achieve a certain task) is way better than letting the user think (almost always) that he can do it in 2 or 3 different ways...

I agree

[JDHill]

As if the designer was so empathic that they anticipate *where* the user will look for things when they need them. This is a very hard thing to accomplish and if not carefull, it is all too easy to end up with an overly abstract interface, where we are called to memorize a gazillion things.

In regards to this, there are quite a few factors. I don't honestly believe there is any single possible definition of 'intuitive UI'...it means a different thing to every user. Forcing designs, no matter how good-intentioned, on the user will only provide frustration. I do believe, however, that it is possible to create a good environment. Here are a few thoughts about what this means:

Main application window:
a) Main menu. A main menu is common among most applications since the dawn of windowing systems. This paradigm works well, users already know it, and therefore expect it...so use it.
b) Toolbars. A dockable toolbar-type element is provided in most UI frameworks, and they too are well known to the user, so use them.

Tool windows:
a) Try to allow these to be modeless...that is, don't block the user from accessing the main application window, just because there is a tool window up. Best case: allow these windows to be docked to the edges of the main window...see: toolbars.

Buttons, etc. :
a) These obviously live somewhere...generally on a toolbar. Don't go trying to reinvent the wheel here. Icons are called icons for a reason...they are meant to give a quick symbolic representation related to the action they produce. Best case: buttons/icons are able to be added/removed/changed; those that come as the default are only that...the default.

User-configurability:
This is the mother-lode. The best designs always implement a scripting interface to give even the casual user the ability to bend the UI to their wishes. Buttons are not actually tied to code...they just invoke script commands...which means that the user is free to move and change how they interact with the core of the application.

So...the three most important things are:

> Use a Main menu: it is the user's permanent 'home base'
> Implement scriptability: allow the user to access functionality directly
> Provide user-configurable docking toolbars: allow the user to make use of the scriptability

Now...above, I may as well be talking directly about Rhino. I personally have only one toolbar in Rhino, and it lives at the bottom of the viewport area, full-screen wide. It uses the small 16x16 button size, and all the icons are of my own making. Some of the commands they invoke are the same ones that ship with Rhino...others invoke scripts and script sequences of my own making, while others are flyouts of other custom toolbars. When I open up the v4 demo, where I haven't set up my toolbar yet...it feels completely foreign. This demonstrates why I don't believe in the concept of the perfect UI:

Someone else's idea of perfect will almost never resemble yours...in most cases it will be repulsive to you.

[KRZ]

interesting talk ...but i wonder why noone yet bring in the so called "context-sensitivity"....that means workflow bound ui. if i do polymodelling i dont need buttons for uvs or animation. if i add an edge-loop...its quite likely that i want to slide it next so it fits. if i add a box its more lickly that i want to bevel an edge instead of erasing a vertex.

what i want to say is. intuitive programms are build in a way to solve problems with step by step logic that is pushed into the conciousness of the user as the best possible workflow.

the things we have to do on this planet appear not overly complex after we take time to analyce them. we play with different strategies and find out what works best. with that knowledge we develop law and technbologie and user interfaces are just that.

i would clearly say that modo is a generation further with its context-sensitivity as lets say maya that just gives u all without and workflow relation. some say they want to created their own gui based on their personal workflow...others say workflow is problem constraint. in the end its a personal matter. myself thinks that there is a lot left to be done regarding 3d softwares guis....and i dont mean a kai krause (zbrush, bryce, aso) approach

[Boris Ulzibat]

Man ... there is no hope for you

lol
I know it!
And i have severe Maxwellomania too!

[acquiesse]

if i add an edge-loop...its quite likely that i want to slide it next so it fits

The wonders of the command line... It is all an alias away

In terms of doing this on a toolbar, the Photoshop "options" bar seems sensible, it adapts to what you're doing, but keeps the continuity of the other toolbars so you don't get confused...

[Mihai]

Linux didn't pick up because most computer users want to write emails, surf the web and chat. But look at webservers, render farms, production studios....it picked up there because it is in many ways a more intelligent design, and more efficient, not just because of stability and security.

If 3D professionals only wanted to render spheres on planes, then perhaps Maya would be less popular than....Cosmic Blobs.

To me it seems counter productive to design something that is supposed to be very powerful and efficient for people that take a little time to learn it, from the point of view of making it as easy as possible for the novice.

The ergonomics can suffer that way. The intuitive design concept also has the trap of designing something based on what users already know because this way you get the intuitiveness "for free". This can also lead to a bad design, or a design that could have been better, if the designers had the courage to explore a different approach.

[jdp]

the interesting thing is that if (and it is a big one) and when children all over will get accustomed with the following OS UI, most of the things we are discussing here might be useless: