Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
>... your app looks like complete {*word*99} compared to the newer stuff,
>and users complain about it. Or when your old app's database
>drivers are discontinued in favor of .NET drivers.
>
>Etc., etc., etc.
>
>
I agreed with your post up to here. {*word*99} is the eye of the beholder,
and while my guis aren't pretty, they work. Even better, old. Yes,
old code that still works is beautiful to me, because it means it was
an investment in time and effort well spent, paying back dividends for
years, and likely for years to come.
You know Chris, up until now, I haven't much ever had a reason to
disagree with you, but you know, your naivete
shines through in this post. {*word*99} isn't just in the "eye of the
beholder", why do you think so many more people are using
Trillian ( I'll just use one application niche as an example, though
there are more ), over AIM or YahooIM or MSN ?
Because it not only LOOKS nicer, it FEELS nicer. Personally, I don't IM
that much other than folks at work, so I
dodder along with AIM. BUT, I'd have to be a FOOL ( and I'm certainly
not one ) to say that AIM looks as nice as
Trillian, or MSN feels as nice as Trillian. There is a reason why there
is such diversity in desktop applications, because while
there are people like you and I in certain respect that will dodder
along with "whatever-have-you", there are people
( and there are a whole lot more of them, than there are of us ) who
want that eye-candy.
Quote
Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.
Luckily for you you haven't had to work in the field where your code has
had to interact with users very much.
There are a quite a few books out there on the subject ( GUI Bloopers,
just to name one ), where you might want
to look and see just how "SERIOUS" all this "IMPRESSING" people is. I've
been involved with UI's ( both at the low-level
Display Driver Level ) and at the application level ( See Amazon
Listing: "Developing Multimedia Applications Under OS/2" ),
and I assure you, that what you write off as "impressing" people isn't
as "FLUFFY" as people think. and no less impressive
than figuring out how to shave off milliseconds off of a database
transactions roundtrip time, by optimizing a stored procedure.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, Chris. But you're also quite
mistaken, that the subject of UI design, implementation,
and support isn't as important ( if not moreso, these days ) than any
other aspect of Software Development.