Rich UI. Is it really worth the hype?

Jon Udell looks at what the implication of getting richer UIs on applications means. He talks about his user experience with Windows 2003 as an example

<quote>

Most of my interaction with the software [Windows 2003] was dominated by two user-interface idioms: trees and tabs. The trees are, of course, the ubiquitous tree controls that manage hierarchies of servers, users, registry keys, and every other kind of object. The tabs are dialog boxes. These are both good and useful constructs, but as a strategy for managing complexity, they haven't evolved. Meanwhile, the Windows server products have gotten much more complex. Adding more snap-ins to the MMC (Microsoft Management Console), thus multiplying the trees and tabs, can't be the only way forward.

</quote>

Jon is right to some extent. We desperately need to simplify the interactions. This would call for newer UI paradigms. Some that are much simpler and can effectively display information and expose functionalities. Jon gives Sam’s Fisheye Menu as an example. The disadvantage of introducing new interactions for existing functionality is that people need time to get used to them. And the best way to get used to them is if the interactions are present in the OS itself. Apple has been leading the way on this front. I and certainly wish for Apple to separate the OS and the hardware or at least, there should be an alternative to the MS OS (I know, I know, Linux) that can really lead the way with pioneering interaction design.

Posted by Navneet at October 18, 2003 10:16 AM | TrackBack | Comments disabled due to spam