Forum Posts Feed
On the Aesthetics of Outliners, Pims, and Personal Knowledge Applications
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 22, 2009 at 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.
Posted by Tom S.
Oct 22, 2009 at 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Its outdated.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.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Oct 22, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>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.
Posted by Hugh
Oct 22, 2009 at 02:08 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
Posted by Lucas
Oct 22, 2009 at 05:42 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.”