SOA Feature Story:
Real-Time SOA Starts with
the Messaging Bus!
Gerardo Pardo-Castellote
wrote: Regarding the
previous comment about
"TCP ...
Jul. 20, 2008 01:57 AM
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
YOUR FEEDBACK
Did you read today's front page stories & breaking news?
SYS-CON.TV |
TOP THREE LINKS YOU MUST CLICK ON The Rich Internet Experience
The "Uncanny Valley" Theory Doesn't Apply to Desktop UI
Creating Look & Feel That Transcends the Desktop Operating System
Apr. 2, 2008 02:45 PM
Digg This!
While the Uncanny Valley appears, in the absence of any real scientific data, to be true; it is only so in the context of natural artifacts of our environment (i.e. other humans, animals, plants, rocks, etc). There is a simple reason for this: Humans have evolved over tens of thousands of years to recognize and scrutinize there natural surroundings as a matter of survival. For example, we are very interested in a persons facial expressions and movement and posture to ascertain their intent. Anything out of the norm is a signal that something is wrong, so we are hardwired to detect aberrations in appearance. It is an innate and visceral reaction. In his blog post Bill Higgins asserts that the same thing happens in UI design for desktop computing. If you design an application that runs on Windows but doesn’t look exactly like Windows, the effect will be unsettling for users. It’s an interesting use of the “Uncanny Valley” theory but it’s fundamentally flawed. People are not innately accustomed to scrutinizing and assessing the characteristics of a desktop UI the way they are humans and other natural artifacts. The computer UI is a very unnatural thing to begin with, so there is no point of reference from which we can feel uncomfortable. We’ve only been using Windows-based software for about 25 years – its not like our ancestors were using Windows 10,000 BC. While many people may have agreed with Bill, I found the posting itself to be unsettling. I’m guessing that more than one designer decided that Bill was right and began to preach the practice of using the native L&F for all application UI design. The trouble with this is manifold. First, the native L&F of windowing systems changes a lot over the years. Look at Windows 3.0 compared to Windows Vista or early Mac interfaces compared to today’s Aqua L&F. They are pretty different. In addition, we’ve seen time and again how new L&Fs can actually enhance a users’ experience. The Apple iPhone is very different from any other smartphone UI, yet it’s become enormously popular. The multi-touch screen is sure to have a real impact on UI design for the desktop as well as devices. Does multi-touch evoke unsettling feelings? No. In his blog post, Bill Higgins recommends that people who are developing UIs should avoid the Uncanny Valley by making sure applications on Windows use the Windows L&F and applications on the Mac use the Mac L&F. The fact that Bill is a developer of the SWT, a Java UI framework that uses the native L&F of the operating system, has surely influenced his perspective. The Curl platform, my own preferred UI system, also provides a native L&F for Windows, Mac and Linux – but you can skin applications too. The reasoning is that you can have native L&F or custom L&F depending on your preference. In defense of Bill Higgins I think it behooves non-designers to stick to an established L&F; non-designers like myself are simply not trained in the design of UIs. That said there is no reason why UI designers shouldn’t challenge the status quote. UI designers should be pushing the UI boundaries, trying new things, failing, succeeding, and in the process advancing the human computer interface. If designers focus on the use of the native L&F of the operating system, rather than inventing new kinds of interaction patterns and L&Fs, than the UI industry is bound to stagnate. There is one more reason that sticking to the native L&F should not be the end-goal of designers: Application portability. With the introduction of the fit client, applications are automatically portable across Linux, Windows and Mac. Having a different L&F for each platform makes it more difficult for user to switch from using an application on one operating system to another. It also makes applications more difficult to maintain and support. For example, the migration from Microsoft Word on Windows to Microsoft Word (or PowerPoint or Excel) on the Mac is more painful than necessary because the Mac version follows the conventions and L&F of a Mac, rather than Windows.  This column appears exclusively at SYS-CON.com. Copyright © 2008 Richard Monson-Haefel. (This copyright notice supersedes the one auto-generated at the foot of this page.) Page 2 of 2 « previous page
WEBSPHERE LATEST STORIES . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL NEWSLETTERS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR RSS FEEDS & GET YOUR SYS-CON NEWS LIVE!
|
SYS-CON FEATURED WHITEPAPERS BREAKING WEBSPHERE NEWS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| SYS-CON MEDIA: | | | | |
| SYS-CON EVENTS: | | | | | |
| INTERNATIONAL SITES: | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
Terms of Use & Our Privacy Statement  About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds |
| Copyright ©1994-2008 SYS-CON Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. All marks are trademarks of SYS-CON Media. |
| Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of SYS-CON Publications, Inc. is prohibited. |
.gif)
A standard from OASIS
called Web Services for
Remote Portlets (WSRP) is
used so portlets can be
decoupled from a portal.
In part one (JDJ, Volume.
13, issue 3) of this
article, we introduced
the relevant standards
and specifications and
then demonstrated WSRP's
capabilities by consumin
Two of the biggest
launches in Rich Internet
Application history took
place in 2007/2008 when
Adobe launched AIR 1.0 in
February '08 and
Microsoft launched
Silverlight (September
'07). At the 6th
International AJAXWorld
RIA Conference & Expo in
October SYS-CON Events is
delighted to be
Mike Neil is general
manager for
virtualization strategy
in the Windows Server
Division at Microsoft.
Mike is focused on the
delivery of the Windows
virtualization
technology, including
Windows Server 2008
Hyper-V, Microsoft
Hyper-V Server and
Virtual PC 2007. Mike
also directs the tec
