From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2002-07-25T12:07:02+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: GUI's and the Rouge, Part III (yes, finally) 1/2

On Wednesday 24 July 2002 07:15 pm, Dossy wrote:
> On 2002.07.24, Benjamin Peterson <bjsp123@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I completely agree that the core functionality should
> > not be dependant on the GUI.  But since the GUI is
> > likely to be larger, more difficult, and much more
> > influenced by OS/toolkit/user considerations than the
> > 'core', it's something to develop over the whole life
> > of the project rather than add as an enhancement.
>
> Do customers (of software) pay for core functionality, or
> the GUI?

Studies show that users prefer a good GUI with limited functionality over a 
high functionality and a bad GUI.

>
> If the GUI is "larger, more difficult, and much more
> influenced by OS/toolkit/user considerations", is this
> necessary or is it coincidental?

It is necessary if you want happy users.

>
> I think that applications that get driven by their UI
> rather than the functionality the software is supposed
> to deliver are doomed to fail (at least, relative to
> any competing application which isn't UI-bound).

I don't think the two aspects can be separated.  What would a word processor 
look and feel like without any user interface?

>
> I do think it's an easy trap to fall into to say that
> "the UI is the closest layer to the user and therefore
> the layer the user will be most critical of, so it's
> the most important layer to do well" but consider that
> even today, in 2002, Microsoft Excel still looks very
> reminiscent of VisiCalc, nearly 20 years earlier.  The
> functionality drove the design and it won.

No, the metaphor of a manual spreadsheet drove the design of both the UI and 
the functionality.  Each is useless without the other, so the design of the 
two must proceed in parallel.
>
> -- Dossy