Marcus' Macro Blog
The other day a friend of mine phoned me. He was trying to install the software that came with his new Nokia mobile phone. He said he was beginning to go mad. He just couldn’t see what he was missing. He said that when he started the installer a screen came up with a license agreement which he had to confirm. But the “Next” button was grayed out. He couldn’t continue. He couldn’t see what he had to do to continue. He was at the end of his tether, so he phoned me.
I set up a BeamYourScreen session and connected up to his PC and started the installer. I could see what he meant. The installer was kind of metallic. All the controls and objects looked completely unlike anything I had ever seen before. No idea why, because I wouldn’t even say it looked “cool”. When we got to the license screen the continue button was disabled. I noticed a tiny (really tiny) little round thing to the right of the license text, on a kind of dashed vertical line. I clicked on it and was able to drag it down. Yep, sure enough it was a scroll bar and when we got to the bottom the continue button became enabled.
Now, it took me only a few moments, but it was not immediately obvious. Gerry was kicking himself and felt a bit embarrassed but I don’t think he should have felt that way. None of the objects on the screen looked like familiar Windows objects. The scroll bar was obscure and completely unlike a regular scroll bar. There’s no reason why Gerry should have known immediately what he was supposed to do. He uses Windows and was installing software for Windows. He knows how Windows works and what Windows scroll bars look like. He shouldn’t be expected to have to use an unknown, alien, design.
If you are developing software for Windows then it should LOOK like Windows. There’s a reason why Windows uses standard controls and a standard look and feel. Sure, colours and fonts can be changed, but that’s up to the user. A Windows app should adjust automatically to follow the user’s selected layout. An application should not make up a whole new look and feel. Whatever you may think of the Windows user interface, no matter how much a designer may dislike the way Windows looks … well that’s tough! You’re designing for Windows, so that is how it has to be. And surely you want your customers to know how to use your software! Surely that’s what is important. Therefore your software should look familiar. It should use standard Windows objects and follow standard Windows conventions. My mate was close to going back to the shop and changing his Nokia for another phone because he couldn’t install the software that let him connect his laptop to the ‘net like he wanted.
Fine, supply skins that let your users change the look and feel of your application, but do this AFTER it has installed. What is the point of an installer that looks alien and doesn’t follow the Windows look and feel? Users shouldn’t have to learn a whole new user interface design just to install your software. Frankly, Nokia should know better. The interfaces their phones use are widely regarded as the most user friendly. But when they write software for PCs they shouldn’t reinvent the Windows interface!
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.mjtnet.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet ThisRelated posts:
D@mn straight. The biggest offenders are in the art-sy community. Media players, cd burners, etc….
I just about drop kicked some cd software out the door cuz it didnt use the common file open window. I had a long filename on my clipboard but no “address” field to paste it in. Instead I had to double click navigate on my company’s lan down quite a few very populated directories. Having to scan the file list each time.
…. wasnt a happy camper afterwards …. oh, BTW, the look and feel sucks compared to the CUI guidelines.
The point is “differentiation” – making the app “stand out”.
Especially in installers, this should make it stand out as being completely evil, and shows that the author cared more about their own needs than what would actually serve the customer.
You forgot something. Windows apps should also WORK like windows apps.
Totally agree! I actually wrote an article on a related subject if you want to check it out: http://www.flyingmachinestudios.com/2006/9/6/how-to-think-about-user-experience-br-interaction-models
It talks about how consistency is essential to helping your users form simple, accurate mental models of your system – in this case, the nokia program completely lacks “external consistency”. What a pain!
I agree, but with reservations.
There is a tension between standards and innovation. I remember a couple of Adobe apps where the OK button was to the right of the Cancel button and it drove me up the wall, so I’m on side with you to that extent.
However, Microsoft ends up defining what a Windows app looks like and behaves like, so if all but Microsoft has to follow one rule (”make your apps look like Windows apps”) and Microsoft follows another (”define what a Windows app looks like”) then Microsoft becomes the only vendor with the ability to innovate – and that’s not a good thing.
There have been many cases of UI innovation outside Microsoft, of course. I think Borland introduced wizards and tabbed dialogs, for example. And where would the Windows world be without them?
So with that reservation, perhaps we should say “..like Windows apps, unless you have a really good reason.”