Comments on: Does function trump form in application design?

By: Paul Calento

Paul Calento — Sat, 19 May 2012 19:59:24 +0000

No. Form and function are increasingly connected. Use of mobile apps have set a new standard for usability that most enterprise apps have yet to match. Plus, the move to a cloud computing model for many of these apps is forcing changes. As noted in a blog by Charles Bess (HP), “… The strengths of cloud (parallel processing in large volumes, remote automated/efficient compute pools, shared resources…) are somewhat incompatible with the way many applications have been written in the past.” If that’s the case, why not do both and address form.

By: DavidS

DavidS — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:25:57 +0000

Not sure how Google is qualified to make any statements regarding usability.

To cite just one example, Gmail uses a host of non-standard, often undecipherable UI elements and icons, places them in awkward positions (particularly in their mobile app versions, where the “send” button is at the top!), and otherwise departs from standard UI conventions, leading to very frustrating experiences for many users.

By: hortron

hortron — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:27:52 +0000

Honestly, one of the most usable pieces of software was Windows 95-98-XP. Was it pretty? heck no, but it ushered in the mainstream acceptance of PCs into daily life. That’s huge. Sometime about 5 years ago I realized (for me at least), that XP was superior in allowing me to accomplish my tasks – and I had been a die hard mac user (early 90s-mid 00s after OS X had become pretty solid in its own right).

Surely this isn’t a popular opinion, and I’m pretty sure it’s losing relevance as we move into a post-pc age.

By: Ram Kanda

Ram Kanda — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:18:04 +0000

Form and function are not separate. They are the same thing. That’s the big secret. The function of a knife is not just to be sharp but to help feed you. If it’s so ugly that you’re choosing another knife, then it’s not functioning to feed you. If you think about hardware and software more holistically, then you get a better product if you push for better design (that is form AND function). Apple’s hockey puck mouse was not a case of form over function… the function was hindered by bad ergonomics so the form must be considered poor. Dividing products – both hardware and software – up into these categories gives us excuses as to their failure. Instead, again holistically, let’s think of a product as a mark out of 10. If you feel a product is 9/10 then it’s a great product… it doesn’t matter how you break up its aesthetics or mechanics. People will buy it.

By: Matt Hately

Matt Hately — Wed, 16 May 2012 04:50:04 +0000

And so continues the long-standing debate in design over form and function. I’m happy the conversation is finally reaching software. Unfortunately we have camps in software that believe that putting lipstick on the pig means good design, and other camps that believe that if you focus on usability and forget the aesthetics, everything will work out.

Does form follow function in software? Not unless you really work at it. As an industry, we try to treat aesthetic and usability as separate things, but they are inextricable. A great product is both beautiful and usable, and it’s successful because someone really sweated the details of both – think Flipboard or iOS. But this is a great time in software. As a design discipline, we’re finally maturing and learning from print, architecture, and industrial design.

For more reading on the subject, check out Mike Kruzeniski’s great post – “How Print Design is the Future of Interaction” (http://bit.ly/JHfnVl)

- Matt Hately, VP Strategy, Macadamian

By: ronald

ronald — Wed, 16 May 2012 02:52:48 +0000

So a beautiful knife with a blunt blade will not look so beautiful anymore after you tried to use it? They had to write a research report about it?
They know that emotions provide feedback loops to perception? Hence it’s hard to trust what people believe they saw, even lawyers know that.