The GUI-Usability-Fallacy

// Published 29 Aug 2006 // 6 Comment(s) //

In my previous post I linked to that "Framework Studio" which I read about in the German a while ago.

I just revisited their site and, browsing a screenshots section, encountered a typical example of what I'd like to call the GUI fallacy. Click the screenshot on the right for an example of what I mean. Somebody has obviously taken great care to give their application a "modern, fresh user interface". Maybe some manager demanded it as a "must-have" in "our competitive market", who knows. One can well imagine how a former version of the product may have looked typically gray and cluttered with information overload. Especially in the business market, you often have manager selling to managers, depending on those managers sometimes with decisions that annoy and demotivate the producers (developers) or the end users (some secretary?) or worse, both.

So now we have a "fresh, modern interface", that box is ticked, maybe they looked to iTunes or something for inspiration, done. But will it be any more pleasant to use? From the looks of it, I doubt it. (I will grant that judging a book from its covers is a risky business, but let me stress this: the customers, or rather, those who will have to use the system, do care; it highly influences their evaluation of a product .)

So merely judging from the screenshot, it seems to me that the graphics are all shiny, but the the program must be a pain to use. User interface without usability, that's what I call the GUI fallacy. "Just modernize the looks a bit, and we're done."

Who designs such interfaces? Who wants to work with that? People will work with that, no doubt: they have to, once they bought the product. But it is just a matter of time for a more attractive opportunity to materialize just right when they are ready to switch. That kind of GUI really makes it easy for its users to switch (ignoring the general hesitation of most to switch, especially when the financial stakes are high, which is probably the reason why badly designed applications are still so widespread).

But don't count on it.

Archives Categories

4 comment(s) pending moderation.

Philipp Schumann
16:22 / 01 Sep 2006:

Take a quick look at Ian's page I linked to: here's a good example of doing it differently. He stood out from the "Help Desk software" crowd, with many competitors having been on the market for years, all of which have GUI that reflect a weary, miserable mood in a dull way. His interface wasn't "lousy coloured bubbles", it was well-designed, yes with some (not too much) lively colours, and overall just enjoyable and pleasant, with a strong focus and usability and the productivity factor that you also mentioned (but no productive-only interface can make up for the loss of productivity due to unmotivated or annoyed users). It makes such a difference, and many of his customers buy because of that (only seemingly) "superfluous" difference.

To clarify what might not be clear from my rant above: I don't *really* try to judge what is good or bad user interface design---only what is a good or bad business move. Of course, the two are the same for me in this (and many others) case.

Your opinion and/or taste may well differ from that of "the average customer", particularly given that you are a programmer and the design above was likely done by programmers (looks like it). As it is not a product targeted at developers, whose taste is the a commercial software producer to follow, their own or that of their employees, or that of their average customer?

Over long, there is no choice but to be more customer-oriented. At least if you want to compete without much of a marketing budget and an expensive sales force going golfing with some potential customer executive. ;)

16:04 / 01 Sep 2006:

ah, no judging by cover, dont you say?
I only had a quick look at it and I dunno what the app is about, but what everyone will recognize is that this app is build for fast access to - indeed - all aspects that shall be managed herein.
and for that approach, it might be a lot more useful than anything else more cascaded.
i now you expect to intuitivly be able to get the functionality and handling of an app at a glace, but beware (here you didnt) - there are several kinds of apps for different usages/target groups. Nearly every kind of secretary person who will ever use such an gruel application accept and requires some days of learning to know how he/she has to do the job. And by then - i mean when you know how to handle - this gui design might be a lot more efficient to do your boring job as a skinnier one could be.
but you may be right, the interface is poor, badly arised within the programs evolution, or part of missing methods to create a better one. and it is not likely to be fun using it all day. but neither is the subject it is about. What are your ideas to do it better? it is trimmed to the most efficient usability. I don't think you could make it funnier. What you might complain about is the tasks done with the program, not the ui itself.
my approache to handle such tasks is to reduce it to the mostly essential parts. everything else can be left or put behind. But if you do so, you will notice here and than somethin is missing, so you put this one and that one in, so you finally get what we have here. the only possibility is a so-called redesign. But until you do so, you try to compromize until there's no way out, say with lousy colored bubbles.