undefined | Better HN

0 pointspublicdebates5mo ago0 comments

I don't trust such books and research. The fundamental thing in question here is what makes Beauty beautiful, which I think is indefinitely mysterious and perpetually elusive. If anyone claims to have grasped at a few concrete conclusions or tangible expertise, I think they're just trying to sell it. The concepts of beauty apply equally to all forms of art, which includes GUIs.

I do agree that Steve was somewhat revolutionary in this, bringing his personal quest for beauty into early GUIs through his (overly) perfectionistic command. I remember a decade or more ago being struck by just how genius it was for him to bring professional typography into personal computers, complete with kerning and everything.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Bjartr5mo ago· 1 in thread

> The fundamental thing in question here is what makes Beauty beautiful

GUIs are tools first and art second.

Any GUI that looks good, but gets in the way, or fails to make the task at hand easy is not a good GUI.

The books and research are about making GUIs functional in an effective way. No one is claiming that a GUI that follows all the principles will look good. However it will make the task at hand easier to perform than it otherwise would be.

The problem is when people in charge of GUIs focus exclusively on Graphic Design instead of UI design. They are different fields, with different goals that only sometimes overlap.

publicdebatesOP5mo ago

I don't disagree with much of what you said. Form and function have to be married harmoniously, which inherently increases beauty. When form decreases function, so does beauty dissipate. And I think GUIs have gone in that direction. They have not maintained the principles that would help bring proper balance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse