[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: User Experience Engineering
From: |
Hans Forbrich |
Subject: |
Re: User Experience Engineering |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:31:29 -0700 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8 |
Dear Linda,
I whole-heartedly agree with your comments about user experience being very
important to adoption of any user-oriented computing product.
One problem with GUIs is that they MUST be tailored to the way the user wants
to, or needs to be trained to, work. Thus, the challenge becomes providing a
comfortable environment - one that fits the way the developer is convinced
will be convenient. The spin-off of this problem is that the developer
resources then become diverted from core functionality to interface
functionality.
My favorite example is the plethora of accounting packages ... by GAAP
principals, and by law, accounting within a country must conform to basic
standards. Therefore Simply Accounting, Quick Books, Microsoft Money, etc.
all MUST do exactly the same thing internally. Therefore the only difference
is in the interface - and that is driven entirely by perceived convenience.
Sadly, the [lack of] quality inherent in these products because of diversion
of scare developer resources is well documented.
Over the past 15 years, we have seen a number of changes: client-server;
3-tier; and most recently web-services and the service oriented architecture.
In all of these, there is a clear separation between the functionality of the
user interface and the functionality of the service provider (server or web
service).
In terms that might make more sense to your suggestion, Lilypond might best be
considered a very advanced music typesetting service provider. The API
(application programmer's interface) happens to be one of more .ly data
files.
There is, perhaps unfortunately, no supplied sample user interface - as those
of us who have spent time with Lilypond have found that manual interaction
directly at the API level is ultimately faster and more flexible than
attempting to use a graphical UI. (I have also found this to be true in 90%+
of all applications I've used - command line IS faster, more robust, more
flexible, less resource intensive and less conducive to error and physical
[health] problems such as RSI, than GUI. It's just not as 'pleasant'.)
As long as the API is accessible, there are opportunities for others to
develop client portions - many in fact, that would make sense for specific
situations.
However, I can envision no single user interface that would conveniently run
the gambit of capabilities that are in Lilypond (therefore there would need
to be several interfaces) . The bickering of what is 'the right' interface
for a situation - being heavily culturally influenced - could easily set back
Lilypond development several years if the current Lilypond developers were to
be involved.
My personal conclusion: Let the graphic artists and user interface specialists
do what they do best; let the Lilypond developers do what they do best; let
the joining come at the API level - which is defined.
Please do not take this as a negative to your comment - in fact it is the
opposite. I just happen to believe that the Lilypond (server) side is not
the right place. Perhaps at the Rosegarden (GUI) side, though.
--
Proud user of Lilypond Music Typesetting Tools
http://www.lilypond.org
- User Experience Engineering, Linda Seltzer, 2006/01/05
- Re: User Experience Engineering, David Rogers, 2006/01/05
- Re: User Experience Engineering,
Hans Forbrich <=
- Re: User Experience Engineering, Andrzej Kopec, 2006/01/05
- Re: User Experience Engineering, fiëé visuëlle, 2006/01/05
- Re: User Experience Engineering, Erik Sandberg, 2006/01/07
- Re: User Experience Engineering, Marc Weber, 2006/01/08