On the Aesthetics of Outliners, Pims, and Personal Knowledge Applications
Started by Manfred
on 10/20/2009
Manfred
10/20/2009 5:37 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.
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.
Manfred
10/20/2009 6:44 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
Manfred
Stephen Zeoli
10/21/2009 2:22 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.
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.
Tom S.
10/21/2009 9:19 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.
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.
Hugh
10/21/2009 1:30 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.
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.
Cassius
10/21/2009 1:31 pm
Polya suggested that one should test a theory by applying it to an (extreme) example. So:
Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
Stephen Zeoli
10/21/2009 6:25 pm
Cassius wrote:
In the day, GrandView was very aesthetically pleasing... mostly because all DOS programs sort of looked alike. So judging GV through appearance isn't really relevant. What made GrandView aesthetically pleasing was its thoughtful functionality, including elegant use of keyboard commands. Does that elegance stand up today? I think so. In fact, I actually find it more visually pleasing today than I did originally; probably because its spare appearance is in such contrast to many of today's applications.
Steve Z.
Polya suggested that one should test a theory by applying it to an (extreme) example.
So:
Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
In the day, GrandView was very aesthetically pleasing... mostly because all DOS programs sort of looked alike. So judging GV through appearance isn't really relevant. What made GrandView aesthetically pleasing was its thoughtful functionality, including elegant use of keyboard commands. Does that elegance stand up today? I think so. In fact, I actually find it more visually pleasing today than I did originally; probably because its spare appearance is in such contrast to many of today's applications.
Steve Z.
Peter
10/21/2009 9:50 pm
>Peter made an offhand comment in another thread...
It's amazing what a word can do sometimes huh?! Good stuff. Yes it was most certainly an off-hand comment but since it?s generated so much discussion I might as well chime in and clarify what I meant.
My point actually did not have anything to do with the analytical process or scientific endeavor per se, as implied by some of the Old Schooler's comments (with respect). Of course we all have some sense of how tough it was before the days of computers but the research still got done. Perhaps a typewriter was the only ?hi-tech? tool available. However I would hazard a guess that if choice had anything to do with it the best designed typewriter won out in the end, at least until the PC took over. The same goes for computer software. There is so much to choose from these days. Provided functionality is a given - most software ?works? at a basic level - I only have enough curiosity and patients to test drive a new app if it meets the current interface standards (XP?) and doesn?t feel too ?clunky? from the start.
I must however admit here that I am no fan of Vista. In my view it?s an example of aesthetics gone sour. Too many bell and whistles. In other words, I see aesthetics as a subjective category and one that shifts with time creating new expectations and values along with it. Hence it's not only about beauty, colors, and layout. Perhaps I should have used the term ?intuitive? instead. In any case I can get a pretty good impression of a new piece of software within the first five minutes provided I am familiar with the application area. I just don't have the time or the patience to be bothered with something that feels like a win 95 or 98 app no matter how functional it is. Nine times out of ten I can find another one that has considered both the interface feel and the logic of functional operations. If I purchase a new car it?s more than getting from A to B, especially if I have to use it every day. The same goes for a piece of software, especially for something as everyday as PIM. In my view the best software is the one that weaves together interface and function in one neatly designed package, the total sum of which is an aesthetic experience.
I think I'm headed for a Mac next.;)
Peter
10/21/2009 9:53 pm
oh those damn ?smart? quotes.
Cassius
10/22/2009 4:09 am
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
Are we possibly confusing aesthetics with functionality? It took me a long time to use much of GV's functionality. Would better aesthetics have made the learning curve easier?
-c
Cassius wrote:-----------------------
>Polya suggested that one should test a theory by applying it to an
(extreme) example.
>So:
>
>Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
In the
day, GrandView was very aesthetically pleasing... mostly because all DOS programs
sort of looked alike. So judging GV through appearance isn't really relevant. What
made GrandView aesthetically pleasing was its thoughtful functionality,
including elegant use of keyboard commands. Does that elegance stand up today? I
think so. In fact, I actually find it more visually pleasing today than I did
originally; probably because its spare appearance is in such contrast to many of
today's applications.
Steve Z.
Are we possibly confusing aesthetics with functionality? It took me a long time to use much of GV's functionality. Would better aesthetics have made the learning curve easier?
-c
Stephen Zeoli
10/22/2009 10:19 am
Cassius wrote:
Are we possibly confusing aesthetics with
functionality? It took me a long time to use much of GV's functionality. Would better
aesthetics have made the learning curve easier?
-c
I don't believe that aesthetics deals strictly with the visual, which was my point about GrandView. GV's beauty was in its functionality, both in its usability and in how it allowed you to access those functions. It was very easy to learn how to use; however, I will grant that if you were not aware of some of its functions or if you didn't understand the purpose of them, it might take some time to learn them. While I was using GV daily, I never used the auto-category function. I was vaguely aware of it, but never understood how it could be really put to use. Now I understand that, after having used Zoot for a long time. So when I decided to resurrect GV recently, I figured out very easily and quickly how to use the auto-category function. To me, that makes GV aesthetically pleasing. The "feel" of a program can be aesthetically beautiful.
Steve Z.
Tom S.
10/22/2009 11:04 am
Cassius wrote:
Polya suggested that one should test a theory by applying it to an (extreme) example.
So:
Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
Its outdated. But so is Michelangelo.
Tom S.
Alexander Deliyannis
10/22/2009 1:12 pm
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
I'd say this sums up most of my ideas on the subject. It also probably explains Apple's success with its products: "Form Facilitates Function"
(I sincerely hoped nobody would have phrased it lilke that before, but they have: http://www.hockeymonkey.com/warrior-hockey-gloves-bully.html and http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?s=e241dfc076d9312cee73c3218707072a&showtopic=833756 very recently actually)
That said, there are obviously cultural / habit influences involved as well: I have kept the same space-saving small icons / "classic" windows layout for several versions of Windows, while my screen's resolution has been growing. Nowadays, people will look at my 11.1" 1366 x 768 notebook screen and ask "how can you work with such small letters" but for me it's perfect.
Similarly, I appreciate simple, clear, uncluttered working spaces, and will go the extra mile to learn keyboard shortcuts for applications I use often, so that I can get rid of most toolbars.
Brainstorm is the ideal writing environment for me and in some ways it resembles Word Perfect for DOS' empty dark screen: I use a very dark blue background with yellow letters. The fact that several contemporary software provides similar writing space (WriteMonkey, Q10, http://writer.bighugelabs.com/ probably means that I am not alone in my preference for the simple and eye-relaxing.
I don't believe that aesthetics deals
strictly with the visual, which was my point about GrandView. GV's beauty was in its
functionality, both in its usability and in how it allowed you to access those
functions.
I'd say this sums up most of my ideas on the subject. It also probably explains Apple's success with its products: "Form Facilitates Function"
(I sincerely hoped nobody would have phrased it lilke that before, but they have: http://www.hockeymonkey.com/warrior-hockey-gloves-bully.html and http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?s=e241dfc076d9312cee73c3218707072a&showtopic=833756 very recently actually)
That said, there are obviously cultural / habit influences involved as well: I have kept the same space-saving small icons / "classic" windows layout for several versions of Windows, while my screen's resolution has been growing. Nowadays, people will look at my 11.1" 1366 x 768 notebook screen and ask "how can you work with such small letters" but for me it's perfect.
Similarly, I appreciate simple, clear, uncluttered working spaces, and will go the extra mile to learn keyboard shortcuts for applications I use often, so that I can get rid of most toolbars.
Brainstorm is the ideal writing environment for me and in some ways it resembles Word Perfect for DOS' empty dark screen: I use a very dark blue background with yellow letters. The fact that several contemporary software provides similar writing space (WriteMonkey, Q10, http://writer.bighugelabs.com/ probably means that I am not alone in my preference for the simple and eye-relaxing.
Hugh
10/22/2009 2:08 pm
Alexander's quotation encourages me to quote two of the most hotly debated lines in English literature (particularly in regard to modern architecture). They seem to encapsulate a lot of what is being said in this thread:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,?that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
(Keats composed them when trying to explain what he thought was wrong with Windows Vista...)
H
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,?that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
(Keats composed them when trying to explain what he thought was wrong with Windows Vista...)
H
Lucas
10/22/2009 5:42 pm
Since this topic began with Peter's comment about the lack of aesthetic appeal of ConnectText (CT), I'll comment briefly.
I have been using CT for a couple weeks now. I just made a comment in the other thread about my CT workflow:
http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/6227
CT is the sort of software I used to think I would never use. It's quite complex, and it encourages the user the think like a programmer, to get under the hood and relate more directly to the some of the computational processes underlying writing software. Like a modern-day DOS, it's almost the polar opposite of the Apple approach to UI. However, in it's own way, it is beautiful. Eduardo Mauro, the developer, seems to have put care and thoughtfulness into every element of the software, and if you are willing to meet it half-way by "learning to speak CT," it's starts to become a really enjoyable and exceptionally powerful environment. And it is not by any means an example of software in which beauty is considered irrelevant, in which function is all that matters. A better example of that, in my opinion, would be Nota Bene. CT, on the other hand, has a very modern, polished, snappy feel. Aesthetics seem very much to be a concern of the developer, but I think he's appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of the geekier types who aren't wowed merely by eye-candy. In other words, I would say that CT has a well-developed "functional aesthetic."
I have been using CT for a couple weeks now. I just made a comment in the other thread about my CT workflow:
http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/6227
CT is the sort of software I used to think I would never use. It's quite complex, and it encourages the user the think like a programmer, to get under the hood and relate more directly to the some of the computational processes underlying writing software. Like a modern-day DOS, it's almost the polar opposite of the Apple approach to UI. However, in it's own way, it is beautiful. Eduardo Mauro, the developer, seems to have put care and thoughtfulness into every element of the software, and if you are willing to meet it half-way by "learning to speak CT," it's starts to become a really enjoyable and exceptionally powerful environment. And it is not by any means an example of software in which beauty is considered irrelevant, in which function is all that matters. A better example of that, in my opinion, would be Nota Bene. CT, on the other hand, has a very modern, polished, snappy feel. Aesthetics seem very much to be a concern of the developer, but I think he's appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of the geekier types who aren't wowed merely by eye-candy. In other words, I would say that CT has a well-developed "functional aesthetic."
Chris Thompson
10/22/2009 10:17 pm
Lots of great comments in this thread. I think it's important to distinguish usability from aesthetics, though the latter may have some influence on the former. DOS applications like GrandView had a Zen-like aesthetic quality: sparse, few distractions, rectangles as the dominant visual feature, appealing color schemes. Some were more usable than others (why "quit" was assigned to F7 in WordPerfect never made any sense to me).
I don't think there's anything aesthetically wrong with ConnectedText at all. Grey, boxy uniform toolbars are far less distracting to me than Office 2007-style ribbons with icons of varying sizes, positions, orientations, and alignments. Where CT seems weak to me is actual editing usability. Having to work in code ends up taking longer than WYSIWYG editing, though one's initial impulse is the opposite. I spent some time earlier in the year writing some documents in LaTeX, thinking I'd be more productive, but the opposite turned out to be true. It takes the mind more time to cognitively process codes than WYSIWYG text. Some of CT's wiki competitors have direct text editing now (TWiki, etc.), so I'm surprised CT doesn't offer it as an option.
I'd definitely agree that color and other visual distractions can affect usability. Sometimes I switch my monitor to greyscale (using the built in OS X facility for this or a program called Nocturne) and it is surprising how a lack of color cues helps the mind to focus... much more than one would expect. I imagine part of the appeal of full screen modes and retro text apps is the lack of visual distractions to disrupt the subconscious.
-- Chris
I don't think there's anything aesthetically wrong with ConnectedText at all. Grey, boxy uniform toolbars are far less distracting to me than Office 2007-style ribbons with icons of varying sizes, positions, orientations, and alignments. Where CT seems weak to me is actual editing usability. Having to work in code ends up taking longer than WYSIWYG editing, though one's initial impulse is the opposite. I spent some time earlier in the year writing some documents in LaTeX, thinking I'd be more productive, but the opposite turned out to be true. It takes the mind more time to cognitively process codes than WYSIWYG text. Some of CT's wiki competitors have direct text editing now (TWiki, etc.), so I'm surprised CT doesn't offer it as an option.
I'd definitely agree that color and other visual distractions can affect usability. Sometimes I switch my monitor to greyscale (using the built in OS X facility for this or a program called Nocturne) and it is surprising how a lack of color cues helps the mind to focus... much more than one would expect. I imagine part of the appeal of full screen modes and retro text apps is the lack of visual distractions to disrupt the subconscious.
-- Chris
shatteredmindofbob
10/23/2009 2:27 am
I think between Mac OSX, Vista/Win 7 and Office 2007, our expectations of how something should look have dramatically increased in the last few years, so a lot of folks like all their apps to look pretty.
Problem is, most of the cool stuff we like on this forum is made by independent developers who can't afford the multi-million dollar usability studies done by Microsoft and Apple.
Problem is, most of the cool stuff we like on this forum is made by independent developers who can't afford the multi-million dollar usability studies done by Microsoft and Apple.
shatteredmindofbob
10/23/2009 4:23 am
Should add, much as I like to think I'm not swayed by a pretty package, I have to admit, I downloaded Xmind recent to try it and took me five minutes to decide to uninstall Freemind.
Manfred
10/24/2009 6:42 pm
Lucas said: I would say that CT has a well-developed ?functional aesthetic.?
That's very well put. I couldn't agree more. I think that Brainstorm has this kind of asethetics as well.
I also tried Tex, and I had the same experience, as Chris Thompson: too much cognitive overhead. But I don't find the same for ConnectedText. This may have to do with the fact that I don't use many formatting features. Italics, bold, lists, and headings, and those formats are not easy to remember but also easy to apply, CTRL-I, CTRL, etc.
Manfred
That's very well put. I couldn't agree more. I think that Brainstorm has this kind of asethetics as well.
I also tried Tex, and I had the same experience, as Chris Thompson: too much cognitive overhead. But I don't find the same for ConnectedText. This may have to do with the fact that I don't use many formatting features. Italics, bold, lists, and headings, and those formats are not easy to remember but also easy to apply, CTRL-I, CTRL, etc.
Manfred
Alexander Deliyannis
10/26/2009 7:07 pm
Chris Thompson wrote:
I couldn't agree more.
By far the best screen for writing I have ever used was an orange Hercules (720?348) monitor in DOS days. My eyes never got tired and I spent innumerable hours looking at it. Many years later I learnt that the orange wavelength used by that monitor was the one the human eye is most sensitive to; therefore the brightness required for viewing was very low compared to any other colour. That, in addition to the clean interface provided by the appas available those days (compare Lotus 123 for DOS to Excel for Windows), was for me paradise.
Ever since I have tried to recreate a similar writing environment. Brainstorm is the closest I have got to that, with the added bonus of its text structuring functionalities.
I'd definitely agree that color and other visual
distractions can affect usability. Sometimes I switch my monitor to greyscale
(using the built in OS X facility for this or a program called Nocturne) and it is
surprising how a lack of color cues helps the mind to focus... much more than one would
expect. I imagine part of the appeal of full screen modes and retro text apps is the lack
of visual distractions to disrupt the subconscious.
I couldn't agree more.
By far the best screen for writing I have ever used was an orange Hercules (720?348) monitor in DOS days. My eyes never got tired and I spent innumerable hours looking at it. Many years later I learnt that the orange wavelength used by that monitor was the one the human eye is most sensitive to; therefore the brightness required for viewing was very low compared to any other colour. That, in addition to the clean interface provided by the appas available those days (compare Lotus 123 for DOS to Excel for Windows), was for me paradise.
Ever since I have tried to recreate a similar writing environment. Brainstorm is the closest I have got to that, with the added bonus of its text structuring functionalities.
Eduardo Mauro
10/26/2009 7:11 pm
BTW, I still have a Hercules card here. And it is working. I also used an orange monitor when I purchased a PC Limited AT machine (later Dell) back in 1985.