Thoughts on the interface: What is more important - functionality or interface?
What is a user friendly interface? If you type this question in Google, the first link that appears will give us the following definition: "A convenient system is the system that allows its users to perform the tasks they want to accomplish." In my opinion, the definition is not quite correct - you can perform the tasks before you with a very inconvenient interface, especially if your boss requires it. There is no getting around, as they say, "the mice cried, injected, but continued to eat the cactus."
In football, there is a very precise definition of the quality of refereeing: a good judge is one who is imperceptible on the field. He is present on the field and follows the rules - and the audience sees the struggle of the two teams, completely ignoring the man in black. Transferring the realities of football in the field of software development, we get the following statement: a convenient system is a system that allows users to perform tasks without thinking about how to do it.
And who are these abstract "users" who need to work with the software? These are living people of different ages, with different levels of education, specialists of different professions, working in different positions. And each of them has its own notions of what is convenience in work. Some examples from life.
Example # 1 - when translating the DOS task under the Windows interface, complaints from specialists who had worked successfully for a long time fell down. In the new software, it became very inconvenient for them to work with a “mouse”, which is natural, because for several years they managed to navigate through the elements with four arrows and the Enter key.
')
Example # 2 - employees of the marketing department did not like the tree view of information in the sales planning program. They were absolutely not interested in either the structural division of data or the calculated subtotals by region, by customers, by product nomenclatures. The only number they needed to get was the total planned sales, and the “tree” only slowed down the adjustment and search for the necessary information.
Example No. 3 - in the user application for software upgrades, a request was made to display contract numbers that meet certain criteria in red, blue or peach (!!) color, depending on the criteria.
I draw conclusions: a truly user-friendly interface should be specifically targeted at specific users who will work with it.
But what about those programs that are initially focused on a wide range of users. I would venture to highlight a few rules that were used in the development of the “Simple Business” organization management system . Perhaps they will help the software to gain popularity and gain fans.
In general, the question “What is more important - functionality or interface?” Becomes philosophical, akin to the famous “What came first — the chicken or the egg?”. Since the first program appeared, it has been discussed by both users and programmers. What is more important, how much more important - no one gives a clear answer. Although, why no one. Surely people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have a clear idea of ​​this line. And maybe that is why their names lead the lists of the richest people on the planet, and their products are successfully distributed and used throughout the world.
In football, there is a very precise definition of the quality of refereeing: a good judge is one who is imperceptible on the field. He is present on the field and follows the rules - and the audience sees the struggle of the two teams, completely ignoring the man in black. Transferring the realities of football in the field of software development, we get the following statement: a convenient system is a system that allows users to perform tasks without thinking about how to do it.
And who are these abstract "users" who need to work with the software? These are living people of different ages, with different levels of education, specialists of different professions, working in different positions. And each of them has its own notions of what is convenience in work. Some examples from life.
Example # 1 - when translating the DOS task under the Windows interface, complaints from specialists who had worked successfully for a long time fell down. In the new software, it became very inconvenient for them to work with a “mouse”, which is natural, because for several years they managed to navigate through the elements with four arrows and the Enter key.
')
Example # 2 - employees of the marketing department did not like the tree view of information in the sales planning program. They were absolutely not interested in either the structural division of data or the calculated subtotals by region, by customers, by product nomenclatures. The only number they needed to get was the total planned sales, and the “tree” only slowed down the adjustment and search for the necessary information.
Example No. 3 - in the user application for software upgrades, a request was made to display contract numbers that meet certain criteria in red, blue or peach (!!) color, depending on the criteria.
I draw conclusions: a truly user-friendly interface should be specifically targeted at specific users who will work with it.
But what about those programs that are initially focused on a wide range of users. I would venture to highlight a few rules that were used in the development of the “Simple Business” organization management system . Perhaps they will help the software to gain popularity and gain fans.
- Simplicity and minimalism. The minimum of elements on each form, the minimum of user actions to perform any function.
- Accuracy of wording. All titles of screen forms explaining the inscriptions to the elements of the interface, the inscriptions on the buttons, the pop-up prompts and prompts in the status bar should be clearly stated and not subject to dual interpretation.
- Display hints. In addition to the inscriptions, interface elements should be accompanied by a tooltip. The prompt should also be displayed in the status bar. The ideal option is to have such tips that would allow you to work without reading the instructions and seeking clarification from the authors of the software.
- Moderate interface color. Each color used in the design of the interface elements should carry a meaning, like the familiar colors of each traffic light. Using the color “for beauty” can confuse the user and force them to perform the wrong actions.
- Reliability of the functional. Probably, this quality had to be put in the first place - after all, no even super-convenient interface will help if your software does not perform the declared functions, or will perform them slowly. As the Americans say, the most important thing in the car is the engine and brakes.
In general, the question “What is more important - functionality or interface?” Becomes philosophical, akin to the famous “What came first — the chicken or the egg?”. Since the first program appeared, it has been discussed by both users and programmers. What is more important, how much more important - no one gives a clear answer. Although, why no one. Surely people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have a clear idea of ​​this line. And maybe that is why their names lead the lists of the richest people on the planet, and their products are successfully distributed and used throughout the world.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/111576/
All Articles