Forum Posts Feed
On the Aesthetics of Outliners, Pims, and Personal Knowledge Applications
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Manfred
Oct 20, 2009 at 05:37 PM
Peter made an offhand comment in another thread: “Meanwhile, ConnectedText?s Win98-like interface, like so much of the PC stuff, doesn?t really cut it aesthetically.” This made me think about the relevance of aesthetic considerations in personal knowledge applications. Are they really relevant?
My first thought was that they are not. To say that such an application doesn’t cut it aesthetically seems to me equivalent to saying that a blank canvas or a blank sheet of paper doesn’t cut it aesthetically.
Neither is really meant to do so. The finished painting or the finished text is meant to do so, and the canvas or the application is supposed to allow you you to accomplish something that is aesthetically (or otherwise) pleasing. the application should not get into the way and serve as an affordance for your own achievement.
I still think that this is right. This is why I also think that a minimalist approach to aesthetic feature is preferable and that form should follow function.
But perhaps someone can show me that this is wrong.
Manfred
P.S.: Since I have repeatedly extolled the virtues of ConnectedText I should perhaps use this post to point out that I have commercial interest in ConnectedText. I am just a very satisfied user of the product from the very beginning. In other words, I must be one of the first people who bought it.
Posted by Manfred
Oct 20, 2009 at 06:44 PM
The footnote should read “I DON’T have any commercial interest in ...” I am sorry, and I do wish that the forum would allow corrections.
Manfred
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 21, 2009 at 02:22 AM
This topic is intriguing, but is likely to be one of those discussions that will never have a resolution. Nevertheless I’m glad to throw my two cents into the mix.
When I see an “ugly” application, I am immediately suspicious that the developer has been equally careless with the underlying programming. When the interface seems to reflect that of an early Windows application, I wonder if it can be very advanced. Still, if the program promises functionality that seems useful, I will usually give it a try. For instance, Tinderbox has a rather clunky appearance, but I am growing fonder of it every day.
I know a lot of people find Zoot rather unappealing in appearance, but I find it elegant, because of how much thoughtful functionality is built into it. But then, I’ve been using it for nearly ten years. As you implied, Manfred, it isn’t the attractiveness of the paint brush, but what the artist does with it… okay, I’m not information artist, but you get the point.
So, I guess I firmly come down on both sides of this question.
Steve Z.
Posted by Tom S.
Oct 21, 2009 at 09:19 AM
I’ll add to Stephen’s reply, which I agree with.
If you are going to use an application every day and use it allot, its quite a bit more pleasant to use something aesthetically pleasing. You are much more likely to want to use it and, therefore, to get things done. I’ve been working allot with PersonalBrain recently and I find the fact that its themeable to be both useful and intriguing. For instance, I try making different types of entries different colors to set off both their characteristics and my moods and global preferences, all at the same time. It looks and feels better.
I’m no more likely to want to use an ugly program than I am to want to eat a tasty dish that doesn’t look good on the plate. Its not that I won’t eat it (and like it). But I’ll be more likely to enjoy it that much more it if it appeals to the eyes, as well. How it looks affects the way it tastes, or at least the way we perceive that taste. Great chefs have understood that for a long time.
I will, however, agree with Manfred on one point. Aesthetics should never get in the way of functionality. It should, if possible, compliment it in the same way function and form complement each other in architecture.
Tom S.
Posted by Hugh
Oct 21, 2009 at 01:30 PM
I agree with most of what Tom and Steve say above. Aesthetics are quite important.
I sit in front of a screen for four or more hours a day. I want what I’m looking at to seem logical, clear and reasonably pleasing.
When I worked in Windows, an application redolent of early 95, 98 or ME would lead me to look at the version history early on. “UI not updated, functionality not clever enough for today” was the assumption (although Ecco Pro was a distinct exception to the rule). Hard to imagine that a little more than a decade ago we thought such design was bleeding edge.
Other somewhat off-putting features included lots of panels (see Ultra Recall), or multi-multi-tier tool/icon bars (see Zoot), though I learnt to love Zoot the same way you learn to love a favourite pocket Leatherman. I think it’s no coincidence that both applications can deter users trying them for the first time.
The Mac world seems to have less of these issues. Some would say that Apple has made a (sometimes expensive) fetish of design, and abolished the “old UI” problem by simply ensuring that unmodernised interfaces are unusable on OS X. But the issues haven’t gone away entirely, as a recent fuss over the changes to the viewbar on Omnifocus (another multi-tier UI) has shown. For OS X as for Windows, designing interfaces to handle deep layers of functionality does not appear to be simple or straightforward.
But, yes, an unresolvable debate.