Forum Posts Feed
On the Aesthetics of Outliners, Pims, and Personal Knowledge Applications
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Cassius
Oct 21, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Polya suggested that one should test a theory by applying it to an (extreme) example. So:
Was/is GrandView aesthetically pleasing?
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 21, 2009 at 06:25 PM
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.
Posted by Peter
Oct 21, 2009 at 09:50 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.;)
Posted by Peter
Oct 21, 2009 at 09:53 PM
oh those damn ?smart? quotes.
Posted by Cassius
Oct 22, 2009 at 04:09 AM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>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