I see comments here and there in this forum and -- sometimes mild, sometimes very stern -- in the vein "this software is so ugly I cannot / refuse / have a hard time using it".

I'm a sucker for nice looking design anytime -- Agenda is my current swoon -- but is interface really all that important? I enjoy using Mathematica -- which has almost zero design sense. I'm ok with Tinderbox because I know where it came from and what the developer's challenges have been over time. The only software I find myself rejecting is software that turns out not to do anything useful, or does something poorly that should be useful. The operative word is "does" or "does not", not "looks like".

Obviously a question of preference with no possible basis in fact, but the question is: can design really be everything? If software doesn't have a pretty face is that a permanent thumbs down?

For me, the value of the interface depends on the purpose I have for that software.


For reference managers, for note taking, research tools, that I consider a very serious task, I don't really care about the interface. I put the features (functionality) first. I don't want to enjoy it; I want to accomplish my tasks with it.


But, for less serious tasks, like todo apps, I might prefer the software with better interface over the one with more features.

Good question, Paul.

In my mind, if the software is unusual-looking, but otherwise well designed, it's quirky. If it is unusual-looking and not well designed, it is ugly.

I've read comments on other forums that make me think the commenter is saying that the software is "ugly" because it doesn't fit Apple's design scheme.

But there is no question that a beautifully designed app instills more initial confidence in the quality of the app, whether that's founded or not.

Steve Z.

But, the whole emphasis on interface seems to have a marketing motive...than serving the user. It feels over-rated quality, with the purpose of catching the eyes of the less experienced user.

Apple puts a lot of emphasis on design. It encourages developers to invest a lot on design.
"Apple design award, blah..."

I hate to post this, but early reviews of Tinderbox (on blogs) invariably had the words “ugly app”, and fortunately, Mark B. started to provide enhancements that could be added, though I thought prettiness wasn’t important.

Paul Korm wrote:

but is interface really all that important?

OmniOutliner Essentials limits you to 11 themes which are locked down in terms of font, size, text color, background color, formatting, whether or not disclosure triangles are shown, whether or not alternating lines are the same color. There's no dark mode, just three (poorly-chosen) dark themes - all of which include some dark blue text on a near-black background.

Utterly awful.

But it's a powerful app for $10, and I use one of the better themes grudgingly. The UI's utter awfulness seems designed to force people into paying the additional $40 for the Pro version to unlock customization, however it backfired with me, and I would rather find another app entirely than pay and effectively endorse Omni's stratagem.

User interface (UX) is not separate from functionality. If a software has an amazing feature but it is hard to use, difficult to find, or implemented poorly due to bad design, then it doesn't really matter if it has that feature or not. This has been the guiding principle of Apple's corporate philosophy since the beginning, and it was only very late that other companies, such as Microsoft and Google began to understand that design was not separate from functionality. Now all three have good design, even if their design philosophies are still different. (Jobs, for instance, was slow to move away from skeuomorphism.)

The difference between Workflowy-like outliners and OO for me is that they get out of your way, so you don't have to think very much about the UX when you work. I would not say that OO is ugly, but it is poorly designed in a way that makes it difficult for me to do the work I want to do. But I use 2Do over Things even though it isn't as elegant a UX, precisely because it has some features that are absolutely critical to how I work. The same with BBEdit which I keep around to do RegEx text manipulation even though I prefer using Bear or Ulysses for my note taking. (I still haven't figured out any use for Agenda...)

Paul Korm wrote:

Obviously a question of preference with no possible basis in fact, but
the question is: can design really be everything? If software doesn't
have a pretty face is that a permanent thumbs down?

I am a very visual person and the way a program looks has a very big influence over my perception of it.

The interface should look nice and be visually intuitive (no "what the hell does that do?" moments) but power is more important than looks, if something is more powerful and does what I want it to do then I will learn to live with the looks.

Having said that if a program comes along which is just as powerful (or even less powerful but does all I need it to do) and has a nicer visual interface then I would switch.

The truth for me is that I preferred the old, ugly Tinderbox in a lot of ways.

Jeffery Smith wrote:

I hate to post this, but early reviews of Tinderbox (on blogs)
invariably had the words “ugly app”, and fortunately, Mark
B. started to provide enhancements that could be added, though I thought
prettiness wasn’t important.

Luhmann wrote:

The difference between Workflowy-like outliners and OO for me is that
they get out of your way, so you don't have to think very much about the
UX when you work. I would not say that OO is ugly, but it is poorly
designed in a way that makes it difficult for me to do the work I want
to do.

Also, with a web-based app there are numerous browser plugins available to change fonts and colors. That's how I am able to use Trello without that annoying background or fatiguing contrast. (And I use Stylish/Stylus skins to enlarge boxes and add named/color tags.)

BBEdit which I keep around to do RegEx text
manipulation even though I prefer using Bear or Ulysses for my note
taking.

I regularly fire up BBEdit just to reformat paragraphs to set line lengths. Does anyone know of any simple utility apps that also do that? The Mac text utils I have (Clean Text, Clean Text Menu, Text Soap Menu) don't offer this simple feature....

I consider two aspects equally important in good UI design. One is how an app lays out and styles its widgets (controls, information panes, and input panes). At one end of bad UI design in this case are apps that show every possible widget on the main view, typically with different sizes or colors or positions intended to indicate an aspect of relative importance or power in the widget. I find this approach as cluttered. An example toward this extreme is the current UI of DevonThink Pro. Another aspect of UI design is how an app uses ink and whitespace. At one end of bad UI design in this case are apps that use multiple colors or put various widgets in framed boxes, typically with the intent again to indicate that some additional or different level of importance should be associated with that portion of the view or with that widget. I can point to one aspect of the UI of DevonThink Pro as an example ... Aligned Columns with Borders. My brain associates this with having to "see past the borders to see into the columns". A corresponding case are apps that spread out content with un-used whitespace in what might be called a case of lowering the information density. The transition going from OmniFocus 1 to OmniFocus 2 is a case where users complained about a decrease in information density (the whitespace between tasks increased).

I'm somewhat on a different plane with regard to DEVONthink -- the UI is utilitarian but since I use have the app open and actively use it 8 - 10 hrs / day, I find the majority of those visible controls useful and I'm glad they are there. But the icons, fonts, etc., are fusty and sort of inelegant. But it works, so I guess in my book it is not ugly. What puts me off, and drove me away from participating in their forums, is the defensiveness of staff -- especially the moderators -- who seemed more interested in party lines than helpful suggestions from customers.

Regarding Tinderbox, I agree with Steve -- the older versions (5, 4 and before) were far more useful. It's true that 6 and 7 brought major new features, but the loss of multiple windows and a few other tools was a big negative. Porting the application from whatever environment it was built in, to Cocoa, was a definite downgrade in user experience.

I've been heavily testing DropTask recently and like the balance of form and function, along with some creative approaches to working with tasks in a non-linear fashion that I appreciate.

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm somewhat on a different plane with regard to DEVONthink -- the UI is
utilitarian but since I use have the app open and actively use it 8 - 10
hrs / day, I find the majority of those visible controls useful and I'm
glad they are there.

This could be taken to support my general comment elsewhere. A certain class of users is so battle worn to the ugliness of DTP that they no longer see it as ugly. First time users such as me have a hard time getting to the beauty beneath the skin. And even when I do get past the UI, some of the bones to DTP seem just not designed the right way some times.

But the icons, fonts, etc., are fusty and sort of
inelegant.

Ha! That is a polite way of saying it I guess. And I learned a new word too!

But it works, so I guess in my book it is not ugly. What
puts me off, and drove me away from participating in their forums, is
the defensiveness of staff -- especially the moderators -- who seemed
more interested in party lines than helpful suggestions from customers.

Here I'd definitely say me too.

--
JJW

DevonThink is long due for the version 3 update, which hopefully will improve the visual look. They should probably look for inspiration to Scrivener, which didn't look all that dated in v2, but really got a lot of subtle visual improvements in v3 that genuinely seem to help to get it out of your way when you're trying to focus. (They did a great job on the iOS version of Scriv too.) Every so often the developer of DevonThink hints at v3 being imminent on Twitter, so hopefully it's nearing completion.

--Chris

Paul Korm wrote:

I'm somewhat on a different plane with regard to DEVONthink -- the UI is
utilitarian but since I use have the app open and actively use it 8 - 10
hrs / day, I find the majority of those visible controls useful and I'm
glad they are there. But the icons, fonts, etc., are fusty and sort of
inelegant.