On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 23:04, Mitja Pagon
<mitja.pagon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "frederik nnaji" <
frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>
As a rule one can say: every submenu is a workaround to a design problem.
The best design is instantaneous, the best menu is a menu that doesn't exist, the best UI is a UI that doesn't exist.
Once we add a layer, level or "page" to a UI, we know that we're adding complexity, and complexity is what makes a UI difficult to use.
The only type of complexity that makes a UI easier to use is the complexity that is supported by native human intuition, and that is something we don't discuss here so much unfortunately..
-----
Out of curiosity, what are you basing this "rule" of yours on? Best UI is no UI, how is that supposed to work? What you are saying makes no sense at all. I suggest you look up the meaning of complexity, also look up oxymoron.
Cheers,
yes, i give you that, taken literally it can't make sense that easily ;)
The purpose of technology is not to be in our way, but to achieve goals. In that respect, the best technology or technique is one which achieves the goal with little or no action at all.
In that respect, reducing the UI, up to the point where it is pure interaction, invisible, unobtrusive, is the goal especially interaction designers share, as far as my opinion goes.
The whole purpose of designing interaction is to work around the fact that it is still necessary. At the end of the day, we want to write a text without thinking about windows, icons, menus or pointers, we want to achieve the simplicity we have when e.g. using pencil and paper. The fact that we are yet to balance the flexibility of computer interfaces with the perfect simplicity of virtually modeled physical appliances reflects, that it is not so easy to simply phase out UIs entirely, they will be around as long as options exist in interaction.
How to design an interface otoh is to aim at not needing it at the end of the day.
imo.