| By Richard Monson-Haefel | Article Rating: |
|
| April 2, 2008 02:45 PM EDT | Reads: |
14,238 |
In his blog post Bill Higgins asserts that the same thing happens in UI design for desktop computing. If you design an application that runs on Windows but doesn’t look exactly like Windows, the effect will be unsettling for users. It’s an interesting use of the “Uncanny Valley” theory but it’s fundamentally flawed. People are not innately accustomed to scrutinizing and assessing the characteristics of a desktop UI the way they are humans and other natural artifacts. The computer UI is a very unnatural thing to begin with, so there is no point of reference from which we can feel uncomfortable. We’ve only been using Windows-based software for about 25 years – its not like our ancestors were using Windows 10,000 BC.
In his blog post, Bill Higgins recommends that people who are developing UIs should avoid the Uncanny Valley by making sure applications on Windows use the Windows L&F and applications on the Mac use the Mac L&F. The fact that Bill is a developer of the SWT, a Java UI framework that uses the native L&F of the operating system, has surely influenced his perspective. The Curl platform, my own preferred UI system, also provides a native L&F for Windows, Mac and Linux – but you can skin applications too. The reasoning is that you can have native L&F or custom L&F depending on your preference.
In defense of Bill Higgins I think it behooves non-designers to stick to an established L&F; non-designers like myself are simply not trained in the design of UIs. That said there is no reason why UI designers shouldn’t challenge the status quote. UI designers should be pushing the UI boundaries, trying new things, failing, succeeding, and in the process advancing the human computer interface. If designers focus on the use of the native L&F of the operating system, rather than inventing new kinds of interaction patterns and L&Fs, than the UI industry is bound to stagnate.
There is one more reason that sticking to the native L&F should not be the end-goal of designers: Application portability. With the introduction of the fit client, applications are automatically portable across Linux, Windows and Mac. Having a different L&F for each platform makes it more difficult for user to switch from using an application on one operating system to another. It also makes applications more difficult to maintain and support. For example, the migration from Microsoft Word on Windows to Microsoft Word (or PowerPoint or Excel) on the Mac is more painful than necessary because the Mac version follows the conventions and L&F of a Mac, rather than Windows.
As a result, everything on the Mac is located in a different location and follows a different UI pattern. It’s not an approach to UI design that I would recommend for people developing cross-operating system applications using Adobe AIR, Curl, Google Gears, or any other fit client platform. Instead of using the native L&F of the operating system – which varies in not just looks but also interaction patterns – fit client developers should find a universal L&F that can be used across desktop operating systems.
This doesn’t mean that everyone should be inventing completely new L&Fs, but it does mean that designers have a unique opportunity today to create L&Fs that transcend the desktop operating system. It’s an opportunity that I hope UI designers will embrace.
Figure 2 (below): The Polar Express & Beowulf

(This copyright notice supersedes the one auto-generated at the foot of this page.)
Published April 2, 2008 Reads 14,238
Copyright © 2008 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Richard Monson-Haefel
Richard Monson-Haefel, an award-winning author and technical analyst, owns Richard Monson-Haefel Consulting. Formerly he was VP of Developer Relations at Curl Inc. and before that a Senior Analyst at The Burton Group. He was the lead architect of OpenEJB, an open source EJB container used in Apache Geronimo, a member of the JCP Executive Committee, member of JCP EJB expert groups, and an industry analyst for Burton Group researching enterprise computing, open source, and Rich Internet Application (RIA) development.
- IBM Puts Systems Chief on Leave of Absence
- Amazon Web Services Database in the Cloud
- SpringSource Moving to Spring 3.0
- Virtualization Expo Call for Papers Deadline December 15
- Move Over BI, Here Comes PI - Performance Intelligence
- Qt DevDays 2009 - Munich
- Using Ext JS, Servlets, JSON, MySQL and Tomcat on Fedora
- Developing APIs for the Cloud
- Canonical Offers Free Cloudware
- New-Generation Virtualization Technologies with Ultra Low-Cost Endpoints
- The Planet Executive to Speak at Cloud Computing Conference
- Trusting the Cloud
- Oracle-Sun: IBM Reportedly Behind Delay
- The Case for Single-Purpose Services
- IBM Puts Systems Chief on Leave of Absence
- Cloud BI & Amazon VPC
- Cloud-Oriented Switch Start-up Valued at $230M
- The Curious Case of Build Release Management eBook
- Amazon Web Services Database in the Cloud
- Tips for Efficient PaaS Application Design
- Reporting Solutions Using Crystal Reports for Eclipse
- SpringSource Moving to Spring 3.0
- Virtualization Expo Call for Papers Deadline December 15
- Un-Clouding Federal Security Compliance
- Java Developer's Journal Exclusive: 2006 "JDJ Editors' Choice" Awards
- The i-Technology Right Stuff
- Creating Web Applications with the Eclipse Web Tools Project
- Eclipse Special: Remote Debugging Tomcat & JBoss Apps with Eclipse
- The Next Programming Models, RIAs and Composite Applications
- Where Are RIA Technologies Headed in 2008?
- How to Bring Eclipse 3.1, J2SE 5.0, and Tomcat 5.0 Together
- SYS-CON Webcast: Eclipse IDE for Students, Useful Eclipse Tips & Tricks
- Eclipse: The Story of Web Tools Platform 0.7
- "Eclipse 3.0 is a Great Leap Forward," Says JDJ's Dudney
- Developing an Eclipse BIRT Report Item Extension
- The Top 250 Players in the Cloud Computing Ecosystem



























