Update the Oldschool GUI

Question

I have been creating Desktop Software for over 10 years, mostly it's simple I / O software. My problem is that it always looks the same: Treeview on the left and many Text / Data fields on the right, depending on the type of data that is currently being processed. Are there any fresh ideas on what such software should look like now?

For further clarification: This is a very hierarchical data, mainly for electronic devices. There are data elements that provide static settings for the device, and there are parts that describe some kind of “Program” for the device. There are many (over 30) different input masks. Of course, I use combined fields and input / output fields.

Answer 1

Having all your software looks the same - that's good. One of the best ways to make it easier for people to use your software is to make it look exactly like other software that your users already know how to use.

Basically, there are two general strategies for handling the input of large amounts of data. First, you have many data entry fields on one page. The next is to have only a few data entry fields, but many pages in the style of the wizard interface. Users of experts believe that the latter is much slower than users who enter data again and again. However, the wizard style interface is less confusing for new users, as it offers fewer elements at the same time and tends to provide more detailed information about them.

I suggest replacing as many text fields as possible with auto-complete combo boxes. This allows users to enter data in exactly the same way as with text fields, but also allows users to save input by pressing the down key to scroll through options after entering part of the data.

Providing more detailed information about what data is entered is likely to give more specific answers.

Answer 2

I would also answer the question I have to ask, what is your motivation for considering the changes? Like other posters, I would agree that there is some value in the sequence, but there is also a strong value, not ignoring the feelings you experience. Perhaps you have the feeling that your users are not as productive as you would like, or you have heard feedback from your customers about this, or you just want to add some innovation to your own interests. In my opinion, tooth scratches are a good feature of the developer.

One thing that I would defend is a detailed study of users. How much do you know about what your users do with the interfaces you create? Do you know the key tasks, the overall workflow? Did you know that if one task regularly consumed 60% of the time of your users, or was there a task that was run only once a month? A good idea of ​​what users are doing (not what they say) is a great place to start thinking about what changes might be useful, especially if you can reorganize the task to get a completely different user interface.

A few specific alternative projects that you would like to include in re-viewing the user interface can be facet viewing (works well for searching and exploring hierarchies) or creating a default / past response database so text fields can use predictive completion. However, I think the starting point will be user research.

Yang

Answer 3

If it works ...

Depending on what you did with the data (that is, it is hierarchical or rather flat), you can try a tab metaphor or perhaps an “Outlook style” with a sidebar showing sections of the application. Another concept I've been playing with lately is the Object Desktop, which I first saw, proposed by Scott Ambler (Building Object Applications This Work). In this case, you can display collections of items, or the user can “clear” individual entries for easy access.

Answer 4

Your information is not enough to really offer you an alternative to the interface. However, can I answer your question with a question? Why do you think you should change it? Did your customer complain? If not, it looks like your client is happy with how the software works right now, so I would not change it. If your client complains about this, he will most likely not just say “This is bad”, he will say “Why he cannot look ...” and this will give you an idea of ​​how to change it.

I had to redesign a very outdated product management system. The old one was written for an already dead database system that still works on MS-DOS. The client suggested that I create a prototype of what this re-implementation might look like, and then he will decide whether I get this job or not. I replaced the old, dead database with a modern MySQL database, I replaced the problematic shared peer-to-peer access using the client server approach, and I decided to rewrite the user interface in Java, as different OSs were used, and this had the lowest migration cost. While the concept seemed good, the client liked it. However, when he asked his employees what they think about it, they asked: "So far it's great, but we have one question: why does it not look like the old one?" In fact, it turned out that even with all the modern technologies, they wanted the interface to look and manage exactly like the old one. So I had to rebuild the 1986 MS-DOS usability nightmare in Java because no other user interface was adopted.

Answer 5

For me, it is more about a clean, comfortable, logical design than anything else. If your program makes sense to the user, it is not clumsy and works as advertised, then everything else is connected with the user interface, in essence, like painting a house. Sometimes I deflated a new version of a program in which, in essence, there were the same controls that were similar in different ways.

There is a reason why you probably chose a tree view, because it probably makes sense to do this. There are various containers and controls available in different user interface libraries, depending on the language, but I usually stick to the usual one, because the user probably gets information about how the tree control works and how the collector works.

Answer 6

The user interface should be useful, just don’t make mistakes to change something that works for something fantastic, just because it looks better (it was along this road) ...

• Make sure the added widgets / controls really add value to the business.
• Make sure the added widgets / controls do not spoil your architecture (too much) and makes the application more difficult to manage / maintain
• Try to adhere to platform standards on how to do things (e.g. Vista ux guidelines )

:)

// W