Web 2.0 has brought many wonderful innovations and ideas to the Internet.
We can no longer imagine the web without a social dimension, and we can no longer imagine
an online world that is read-only - it is now a read/write web full of user-generated content.
But there is another fairly recent innovation, which might have just as profound implications. We're speaking of the contextual user interface.
Even five years ago we lived in the boxed world of Windows-dominated UIs. There were standard UI elements - menus, tabs, combo boxes, tables - and every single desktop application was full of these elements and nothing else. User interface was not the place to be innovative. It was considered unorthodox and even dangerous to present the interface in non-standard ways because everyone believed that users were, to be frank, stupid, and wouldn't want to deal with anything other than what they were used to.
Strikingly, the recent wave of UI innovation is proving exactly the opposite. Users are not stupid, and in fact, they were overwhelmed with choices presented in traditional UIs. The new interfaces are winning people over because they are based on usage patterns instead of choices. The key thing about new UIs is that they are contextual - presenting the user with minimal components and then changing in reaction to user gestures. Thanks to Apple, we have seen a liberating movement towards simplistic, contextual interfaces. But can these UIs become the norm? In this post we take a look at the rise of the contextual UI and ponder if they will cross the chasm.
Looking back at the years when Windows dominated our lives one can hardly
believe what we put up with. These interfaces were massive and overwhelming. Each application
was full of screens with huge numbers of options and settings.
Every imaginable choice was thrown at users at once and it was up to the poor user to figure out what to do. To cram more information onto the screen, the interfaces of that era used tabs. At some point Microsoft invented the ultimate UI element - a tab with a scroll button in the end which allowed the user to page through hidden tabs.
Another philosophy of the old UI approach was that the user wants
to see all information all the time. Instead of building UIs that responded to the way that people actually
interacted with the tool, the user interface opened up all possible choices at all times. Naturally, this is
completely overwhelming and confusing to people.
The only way to cope with complexity was to introduce a standard set of widgets, such as tables, combo boxes, check boxes, etc., so that users at least had some familiarity with UIs from program to program. But on top of that, there was a myth spread that users were stupid and would not be able to understand a non-standard UI.
The myth was supported by the fact that a lot of people do not respond well to sophisticated visualizations, like graphs, heat maps, or treemaps. While this is true, it doesn't mean that people can not figure out new user interfaces. The proof comes from Apple, which continuously innovates with new UIs for its software products. Also, recent social web applications have made a strong case for simpler, contextual user interfaces.
Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple over 10 years ago, the company has been on a roll. The secret sauce behind Apple's success is a strong investment in software. In turn, this has meant a lot of innovation is user interfaces. Many years ago, when I myself was blinded by the standard Windows UI, my boss told me that user interfaces are cheap. He meant that building new UIs from scratch makes sense, because the UI is so essential and so important to get right that you shouldn't just reuse code and widgets.
Steve Jobs and his team know this all too well. Apple's UIs evolve constantly, taking on new forms and seeking simpler ways of delivering a superior user experience. What is remarkable is that you always know how to use Apple's products. I watched this over and over again. From my 4 year old daughter to my 83 year old grandfather, everyone I know could use an iPhone right away. iTunes has so few buttons that it is impossible not to know how to use it. And so does iPhoto and every other program developed by Apple.
In addition to simplicity, Apple has for years been using a contextual approach to user interfaces. Apple widgets react to user gestures by changing shapes and presenting more options only when it makes sense. And the latest web applications have got the contextual bug from Apple.
It is ironic that it took web UIs so long to discover the elegance and simplicity of context. Since its dawn, HTML lacked the sophisticated widgets that are present on the desktop and web UIs were always considered more primitive and slow. Contextual, AJAX-based UIs actually seem faster because they do not reveal all possible choices to the user. Instead they focus on surfacing just the bits that are necessary and then surfacing more based on user gestures.
A good example of context-based UIs can be found in modern video players. The controls in these apps are hidden until the user moves the mouse over the player. Depicted below is the player from Vimeo.
Another typical element of contextual UI is modal DHTML dialogs. Regular modal dialogs are annoying to the user, but the modal DHTML ones work great because they bring the actions into the spotlight. For example, the dialog below comes up when the user clicks on Embed option in the screen above.
Note the contextual options in the screen above. The user can either preview the video or customize its look. Neither of these options are required so they appear as closed off toggles. If the user decides to explore the option, the toggle simply expands as shown below.
Another important breakthrough in the contextual UI approach is the realization that function is more important than design. The famous Apple mantra that design is the function is true, but not everyone can design like Apple. Lots of web sites in the nineties ended up with designs that were overwhelming and needlessly flashy. Those designs paid more attention to colors and forms than to the function. The new UIs are different, because a lot of them are purposely plain. They favor CSS over images, and focus on function and context instead of knock-out looks.
Lots of companies got the context bug. Flickr, Digg, and 37 Signals are just a few that use contextual interfaces. Our next example comes from the literary social network Shelfari, which developed a contextual UI for interacting with individual books. The remarkable thing about this UI is that it violates a lot of classic principles yet it succeeds in delivering the necessary functions in a contextual and compact way.
When the user mouses over a book, a contextual popup comes up containing information about the book
and a set of associated actions. Part of the popup is a button/menu (sort of like a button and combo box)
widget that allows the user to provide information about what he or she did with the book. The first thing to note
is that combination of a button in a menu is not standard, yet it makes sense because it saves a click for the
most important action. Secondly, the menu is effectively a popup within a popup, which is a big no-no in the classic world,
but works well in this context. The elements of the menu are not buttons but check boxes, which allow multiple selection -
another violation of classic user interface elements, but which works very well in this context. What is remarkable is how
intuitive this gadget is - you are interacting with it in the context of a book and each choice is simple and clear.
Such clarity and simplicity was never present in the old interfaces. Clearly, this new approach to UIs is great, and early adopters are loving it. But will it cross over to the mainstream?
Crossing the chasm is a tricky thing and many cool technologies that are endorsed by early adopters fail to do it. Even though simple, contextual UIs make sense, the old UIs are still holding on strong. One of the early examples of a company that has adopted the new approach to user interfaces that we found is the Hertz car rental site. Hertz had one of the less user-friendly sites around, with a dull, "click-to-load next page" sort of UI. Their new web site features an intelligent contextual UI, which enhances and simplifies the process of reserving a car.
For the transition to happen the new approach needs to be embraced by more mainstream web sites. Will they go for it? The answer depends on whether they will think that the new UI approach, with contextual choices, is more complicated. Certainly there will be people who will say that consumers are not smart enough to figure out where to click. The concerns might be amplified by the fact that each contextual UI is unique and so won't be familiar across the board for users the way the old UIs were. Still, it seems, based on our experiences over the past few years and on the impressive track record of Apple products, that simple, contextual UI have a chance to finally win out over their complicated Windows rivals.
What do you think - can contextual UIs become the new standard for creating user interfaces? What are your favorite contextual UI elements?
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Why no mention of the task pane in Microsoft Word? This preceded Apple's 'contextual' interface in my opinion. And it is extensible, unlike most of Apple's closed implementation.
What about the Ribbon interface in Office 2007?
Shorter attention spans and increasing complexity of devices force designers to provide a simpler interface to aid users.
Generally acceptance is driven by familiarity, which is what drives most Windows UI design elements I guess. But intuitiveness trumps familiarity and Apple has done well to tap into our innate sense of what should be rather than siding with habit.
Posted by: Mahesh CR | May 15, 2008 12:57 AM
Nice article. I think contextual UI's are something that I subconsciously appreciate but haven't really given much consideration to as they have kind of crept up on us in a fairly progressive manner. I have been an Apple user for 4 years now, so perhaps i just take it for granted without really thinking about it.
It is only one of those things which becomes very apparent when you visit a site that doesn't make use of intelligent context based navigation. However i do believe it is something that a lot more designers need to perhaps consider. Your point about function over design is one that i definitely agree with but perhaps everyone should be striving to create function through design, Apple can't be the only ones to be successful at doing this surely.
Posted by: Pete | May 15, 2008 1:00 AM
Great post indeed
Posted by: Varun | May 15, 2008 1:18 AM
The abundant cycles available on today's muti-core processors can be put to good use in pre-digesting information and information options for users so that they get exactly what they need, when they need it.
Remember when you had to select spell check from the menu in Office. Now it's automatically done in the background as you type. A matter of time before processing becomes cheap enough to further pre-process the Database of Intentions for users (http://battellemedia.com/).
For instance, a startup announced a search engine that uses visual input and connects things with related information using camera phones. The news was posted on a few blogs -
http://www.i3a.org/2008/05/14/thrrum-mms-searchtm-brings-mobile-visual-search-to-camera-phones-via-mms/
Their website at http://www.thrrum.com/en/ expands further on the intriguing concept. Do things things around us provide a simple and intuitive context with which to access information? Sounds like a vein of pervasive computing.
I would say Contextual UIs are an offspring pervasive and persistent computing - one connects the context with the information and the other enalbes the process of connecting.
My 2c.
Posted by: Chris | May 15, 2008 1:21 AM
I couldn't agree more with the main point of this article. I have never believed that users want a ubiquitous standard interface. Just look at the popularity of the web- it is a melting pot of weird and wonderful designs and interfaces, and people love it.
It would be a real shame if - through the adoption of a standard framework - we lost that diversity, and ended up with a generic windows-like environment on the web.
Moreover, as a UI developer/designer, my job would be incredibly dull if I had to spend all my time rolling out standard UI components, rather than developing unique and unusual interfaces from scratch.
Finally, a bit of a plug for a project I have been working on (which I like to to think features an innovative UI - all done in AJAX, btw.)
http://www.mobyko.com/gallerydemo/mobykogallery/index.php
AJK47
Posted by: AJK47 | May 15, 2008 1:33 AM
Intelligent contextual choices are simply what we humans are faced with every day. I don't operate Winamp the same way I operate my stereo, and I don't operate the stereo the same way I operate a mixer when recording, but each time I am just dealing with music in different contexts. Each context presents me with a unique UI, and I'm glad it does. After all, recording through Winamp would be very limiting.
Posted by: Jon | May 15, 2008 2:24 AM
Actually, didn't the right-click in Windows put contextual UI into almost everything?
Posted by: Jack Schofield | May 15, 2008 5:17 AM
Nice article, as always.
Where is the image of the color picker from?
Posted by: louis w | May 15, 2008 6:15 AM
Good article. The idea of the WIMP interface (windows icons menus pointers) was sufficient during the time: trying to get computer usage out of command line geekiness to capture a mainstream audience. But this is no longer enough as we no longer do only basic things on the computer (document processing, email and the like). As such, we've embraced contextual UIs to help us carry through complex actions that we take for granted in the real world.
What's going to be really cool, however, is when we get out of this point-and-clicking era. Humans weren't made to point and click. We were meant to gesture, speak, and listen. Touch screens are becoming popular, but the combination of all of these done in a clean way will make us never leave our computers. :)
Posted by: Karen Teng | May 15, 2008 6:41 AM
When Google introduces a new feature in Gmail or Docs, I not only know what it's for instantly, but I immediately realize I needed it yesterday.
Not so much with Apple. I've get frustrated with iTunes each time I'm tempted by all the great content to try it again.
Posted by: Terri | May 15, 2008 6:48 AM
@Karen
It is interesting thought that we are not meant to point and click. What is also true, though, that in physical world we manipulate things with our hands and huge variety of tools. Different tool is for a different purpose.
But with computers it is inverted. There are no tools, there are just clicks and so instead of making a choice with our head and going right to where we need to be, we are forced to navigate through choices with clicks.
Things like touch screens are certainly the next step, but even iPhone today is all about clicks. Granted smarter clicks, but still clicks...
Posted by: Alex Iskold | May 15, 2008 6:51 AM
Sorry RWW, but you are wrong. It's not called "contextual user interfaces."
This is minimalism.
Posted by: carrotmadman6 | May 15, 2008 6:57 AM
What is the difference between a context of use and a mode of use? In both cases the designer has to make some assumptions (which are subject to error) about how the user is going to want the application to behave. Some times it makes sense to offer a lot of choice.
I think what you are really identifying is simply good design versus bad design. UI design isn't cheap; I would argue it's extremely complex and costly to get right. The reason Apple's interfaces are better is probably because they spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to get it right.
Posted by: Ernie | May 15, 2008 6:58 AM
I've been noticing these things showing up more and more frequently- the 'complete an action to see more actions based on the choice you just made' model. I think it's a great direction but there is a bit of an experience curve as we get used to these things- not seeing all our options at once. The simple example would be to not see a Copy/Cut option if you have not selected something but as soon as you do select the options appear in context. These might replace menus and right clicks.
BTW, I disagree about minimalism. This offers much deeper complexity without taking up a lot of space (important with smaller screens). Gestural interfaces are also going to replace a lot of the old 'everything and the kitchen sink' UIs.
Posted by: Martin Edic | May 15, 2008 8:12 AM
Great article.
Actually I didn't realize it was such a no-no to approach UI design in this way. We did it at Corel way back in 1995 for Corel PrintHouse - a very successful desktop app. It was completely driven by context with it's 'intelligent notebook' and it had one of the first ever instances of a context sensitive 'task pane'.
The app was an immediate big hit with users and as the link below shows, the 'how-to' documentation for the entire app was only 2 pages!
http://www.mbaynger.com/fl_cor_printhouse.html
Posted by: theuseradvocategroup | May 15, 2008 8:24 AM
What's typically missing from contextual interfaces is accessibility options. What happens in contextual popup menus for users with Parkinson's?
Easily solvable problems, but I don't see them being addressed in the "wow factor" UIs currently.
Posted by: Jeff | May 15, 2008 8:55 AM
Very timely post. We were just discussing this at work yesterday. Classic concepts such as simplicity, "less is more", and increased focus on the user rather than the "solutioning" process are all items designers and usability engineers must focus on. I'm not sure if you've seen MS Office 2007, it's not an apple application but it is a step towards improving usability by making it more contextual.
http://webshopinabox.peter-tashjian.com/WebShopInABox.htm
Posted by: Peter T Webshop | May 15, 2008 9:03 AM
You've got a great point, but you're using the wrong terminology. It's a common mistake. When you say:
"Another important breakthrough in the contextual UI approach is the realization that function is more important than design."
What you really mean is that DESIGN is more important than STYLE.
Design includes decides what functions are available when in the interface, the workflow of how a user progresses through the interface, and every other facet of the user experience.
Style is just adding graphics. Without good design, it is, as you say, a detriment.
Posted by: J. Jeffryes | May 15, 2008 10:28 AM
@AJK47
That's some fine work there with the photo gallery...I love it!
Posted by: Jeff | May 15, 2008 3:03 PM
I prefer to see everything right there on the screen all at the same time!
Posted by: steveballmer | May 15, 2008 3:44 PM
Apart from sounding like a shill for Apple, this idealistic blog is unintentionally ironic. Can I just read the article, which is all I want to do? No. I have to filter out a bunch of ads across the top and right-hand side, some of them flashing and dancing. That's the mind-numbing reality of the commercial Web. Enough advertising to choke a horse, all of it designed specifically to distract me from what I actually want to do.
Posted by: ken | May 15, 2008 5:12 PM
I think that contextual user interfaces and menus make sense to humans in general. A phone call to a hotel reception desk to make a booking could be kept to a few key questions if the main goal of the reception staff was to provide a fast service. However if a hotel were out to "up-sell" then they could ask guests many more questions - but at some point these extra questions would start to become annoying. Designing sites which can cater for speedy users as well as users who require more tailored packages is a key faction in maximising online sales. A hotel receptionist would have to force these questions where an online booking system allows more detailed questions to be subtly separated from the core booking information in order to make the booking process more sensitive to the user's environment. Ultimately "going mainstream" will require businesses to see that there is a monetary gain from contextual interfaces and menus; when executed tastefully this provision of extra information and options to users will definitely enhance user experience and will increase sales.
Posted by: Jono | May 16, 2008 2:35 AM
If this article doesn't scream blind bias, I will.
BIAAAASSSSSS
Posted by: Jon | May 16, 2008 9:26 AM
Another dumb blog sucking on Jobs.
Posted by: Sebhelyesfarku | May 16, 2008 10:55 AM
What a load of palaver. When will naive Apple fanboys cease spouting dubious usability and computer history notions, as if they are facts.
From the article: ***"But there is another fairly recent innovation, which might have just as profound implications. We're speaking of the contextual user interface... Thanks to Apple, we have seen a liberating movement towards simplistic, contextual interfaces"***
Contextual interfaces intended for consumers are not recent, and they proliferated long before Apple Computer existed. For example, by the late 1960s, bank ATMs gave the customer a set of choices, and, after a choice was made, gave the customer a new context of choices. Hence, early ATMs featured a contextual interface: http://www.thocp.net/hardware/atm.htm ATMs were everywhere by the late 1970s, when Apple Computer started.
Contextual menus certainly must have appeared in the computer world before they appeared in bank ATMs. Such menus even existed early on in Microsoft products: in the DOS installation, and in early Windows "Wizards" with contextual, step-by-step interfaces.
In addition, menus with changing contexts appeared long ago in various other devices: vending machines (the first menu queries selection, then the next menu queries to "give change or make another selection"), early video games, juke boxes, etc.
Furthermore, contextual UIs are not limited to machines with screens. Any early, phone answering system that offered primary and secondary sets of choices constitutes a contextual UI. The same goes for any early board game in which the player lands on a square and is then given options on the next move.
The article describes the earlier Windows interface: ***"Every imaginable choice was thrown at users at once and it was up to the poor user to figure out what to do."***
How does the writer come to this conclusion? The only thing that he gives to support this assertion is a partial screenshot of what looks like Microsoft Word with every toolbar displayed. How many times has anyone seen Word (or any other Windows app) deployed with all toolbars displayed? This can't be the default set-up -- some user must have turned on all those toolbars.
Even if it were the default set-up, one would have to be a complete tard to not to eventually realize how to turn off the toolbars. Also, the meaning of most of the buttons are self-evident, and most of the button icons are used in multiple OSs.
Windows applications have never really been more or less complicated than those in any other OS. They made extensive use contextual dialog boxes. In addition, some applications were/are multi-platform.
And, again, the Windows wizards always gave simple contextual menus, one-at-a-time.
The article continues its Windows description: ***"To cram more information onto the screen, the interfaces of that era used tabs. At some point Microsoft invented the ultimate UI element - a tab with a scroll button in the end which allowed the user to page through hidden tabs."***
First of all, how does the author know that Microsoft invented the tab scroll button/bar? He doesn't supply any proof nor any reference to support this claim.
Secondly, usability-wise, what is wrong with having a scroll button/bar for tab overflow?
Thirdly, the Mac way of handling tab overflow seems to be having a 2D, "double arrow" within the tab that is on the far right: http://i25.tinypic.com/hv59xz.jpg How is the Mac method better, usability-wise? Also, it seems that, in the case of Safari, the arrow system does not allow one to drag the overflow tabs -- a hindrance.
The article continues in the next paragraph: ***"Another philosophy of the old UI approach was that the user wants to see all information all the time."***
The author is repeating the point he made in his previous paragraph. So, again, how does he come to this conclusion?
***"... there was a myth spread that users were stupid and would not be able to understand a non-standard UI."***
What? Where did that myth originate? Has anyone else heard this myth? Maybe it was spread by Mac fanboys.
***"The myth was supported by the fact that a lot of people do not respond well to sophisticated visualizations, like graphs, heat maps, or treemaps. While this is true, it doesn't mean that people can not figure out new user interfaces."***
Huh? What does he mean by "people do not respond well"? Sounds vague. No support, but the author must have done extensive field testing on his own.
Graphs and charts are supposed make it easier for people to visualize data. However, what do such visual aids have to do with a computer GUI?
Actually, treemaps do help considerably in the usability of complex devices, such as computers. For instace, a user who understands the directory structure of a partition(s) will have a much easier time navigating and finding files in several situations.
Not emphasizing to users this basic directory tree concept could be the biggest usability blunder ever (by both Apple and Microsoft), responsible for generations of helpless computer users.
***"The proof comes from Apple, which continuously innovates with new UIs for its software products."***
What has Apple innovated in regards to the computer GUI, other than the trash can and, perhaps, Expose?
***"Another important breakthrough in the contextual UI approach is the realization that function is more important than design."***
I think he means that function is more important than style. Function is integral to the design (hopefully).
***"The famous Apple mantra that design is the function is true, but not everyone can design like Apple."***
Meaning "style-is-the-function" rules Apple's design, hence we have items like the round mouse, monitors that can't tilt down, default jelly-blob window buttons having minuscule click-able areas and lacking intuitive symbols, etc. So, it seems to be true -- not everyone can design like Apple.
Earlier in the article, the author suggests the philosophy behind the Windows GUI: ***"User interface was not the place to be innovative. It was considered unorthodox and even dangerous to present the interface in non-standard ways because everyone believed that users were, to be frank, stupid, and wouldn't want to deal with anything other than what they were used to."***
This GUI philosophy sounds more like that of current Apple fanboys than that of any other computer user -- fans of Apple are always dogmatic about how consistency is so important to usability and about how important it is to "dumb-down" the GUI. Even the author showers praise on Apple for dumbing-down the Mac GUI. If Apple didn't believe "that users were stupid," why would they need to dumb-down their GUI?
I should have stopped reading at the "Thanks to Apple..." line. Can't read any more. This article is a bilious, Apple-adoring mess.
Posted by: Herman Munster | May 16, 2008 11:31 AM
When GUIs were first introduced, users WERE "stupid". Adults were suddenly grappling with a completely foreign mode of working as they struggled to focus on the business documents were working on. It was helpful to have elements that were standard across applications.
Similarly, it was useful and instructive for new screen elements to be added to applications even if they increasingly cluttered the desktop. As software developers around the world learned how to build GUIs, they could showcase their innovations to other software developers (even those they had never met). It allowed the global developer community to refine the interface in a competitive and iterative way.
It is only now - when the adult community has been educated, the youth community has grown up comfortable with technology, and the developer community is competent with the toolkit at their disposal - that many and varied "spartan" interfaces can realistically be effectively deployed.
Mark.
Posted by: Mark Newton | May 16, 2008 2:59 PM
Great article and speaks well to the function vs. form objective that is the web. I find that most clients are looking for flashy, bold designs that confuse the user...trying to convince them that function and UI are most important when thinking about the creation of a site is hard to explain. Why don't people get that it's important to give your viewers an easier, stream-lined way for them to receive information, as opposed to lengthy copy or HUGE ASS images?!? I'm over it.
Posted by: Heidi | May 17, 2008 9:37 PM
"What is the difference between a context of use and a mode of use?"
Great point Ernie.
I got taught ages ago in uni that modes lead to human errors, people making the assumption they are in the wrong mode.
I've seen this time and time again in UI's and I've found it painful for my usage too, so now I avoid modes as much as humanely possible. The most common mode I run into is the Modal dialog. Sheesh now that is a pain sooo often.
I suspect this contextual stuff has limited uses and should be very carefully considered before implementing it.
Posted by: Tim Yen | May 18, 2008 10:09 PM
Magkano pitsa pie?
Posted by: JuicyFruit | May 18, 2008 10:36 PM
It is a BAD article, and I mostly agree with comment #25. It says nothing new, and it says the obvious (good UI is good) in a totally wrong way.
Though, let us appreciate the author for being able to write such a thing, and still be praised by some readers, and maybe even earn something. It takes a very certain kind of blaa-blaa talent.
Posted by: Sergey P. | May 18, 2008 11:40 PM
Familiarity is a function of experience. The success of function is measured by needs satisfied.
If you are experienced on the topic you may be impatient with the simpler interface. Having the details hidden but easily accessible is fine. Overly complex interfaces are just as tedious, especially if you are new to the topic.
A recent example for me was watching the IIHF World Hockey championships to see my nephew play. We had been watching on the WCSN.com Internet site using the schedule page. Simple, direct, easy to use.
On 5/18 they did not include the Gold Metal game on the schedule page. No explanation of why. We missed the first period trying to navigate other sites to find a link because of the complex pages full of ads, video clips, and other extraneous information.
I would favor a mixture of clean uncluttered presentation with the use of tracking to customize the user experience as the number of visits increases.
Welcome back Dan, here is a summary of your last visit. Note that the WCSN Gold Metal game in the series you have been following can be viewed at: ....
Maybe with the options to view prior browsing history, etc.
Isn't this the most natural approach. Isn't this how we all learn and experience information. An iterative refinement of details with selection of value and relevance. So why not have a site be in synch with this?
The confidence that this approach will lead to more frequent visits and more success for the site needs to be present. Studies have shown that meeting specific needs plus a feeling of community creates repeat traffic.
Some sites are popular in spite of visual oversaturation. But only as long as there are no better alternatives.
Simpler interfaces can lead to simpler development cycles, less coding, and eventually less browser compatibility issues.
I doubt if these are the goals of the behemoths of the Internet products landscape, however.
Posted by: dpminusa | May 19, 2008 12:54 AM
Nice article and I agree that there is a lot of innovation still to come within UI design. However your article does not cover the problems that a lot of the contextual UI's bring to disabled users.
I work with public sector organisations creating web solutions for these clients and as a result we are very limited on what we can do. We have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of what the UI can do and people will understand. A lot of the examples you give are brilliant on design sites and small niche sites but I for large organisations who have to appeal to a whole range of individuals with different abilities its not an option; especially since the Disabilities and Discrimination act(UK) has changed to but more responsibility on make sites accessible.
Posted by: M Edwards | May 19, 2008 1:28 AM
Why photo-shop a word app by duplicating menus just to force us into accepting your presumptions? You really didn't need to do that. It's not just MS that sometimes has poor UI's but Apple and everyone else does too. If you have to force an MS app into looking as if the UI is that terrible and confusing it leads me to believe that your premise doesn't hold water.
Posted by: ed | May 19, 2008 5:55 AM
Contextual UI is just another way, not necesarily better. It depends on who the targeted user, how complex the application is and, how often the application/feature is used. Designing user interfaces is such a complex endeavor that even a biased article, such as this one, does not even begin to address. Apple is just as bad as everyone else - it just looks better.
Any reader that has been through English 101 and 102 in college can see through the lack of support and proof that a decent article needs. Just because someone wrote this does not make it true.
Posted by: max | May 19, 2008 7:15 AM
What amazes me is that nobody has mentioned power users.
This article confuses designing for new users with the complete design. It's true that a simplified design can help new users get started with an application. Present them with too many options and they might get overwhelmed. It's also true that providing the most relevant actions for the current task can help a new user figure out what they want to do.
But make a daily user of your software go through the same limited actions every time -- and they will stop using your software. So called "power users" expect you to give them options to use your software exactly how they want to... and not be forced to use a "contextualized" approach.
Take for example the iPod. It's so simple - just a couple buttons on the front and some funny "hold" switch on the top. But what if the damn thing freezes and I need to reboot it? I have to enter a secret key sequence (select + menu) and hold both keys down for several seconds. If I want disk mode? I have to do the secret reboot command then another secret command. Aren't "secret commands" one of the things Apple users have used to criticize DOS and Windows for years?
Here's another usability flaw from the all mighty Apple. Suppose my iTunes music library has gotten out of synch with the actual music files on my hard drive. Just to figure out which files are out of synch, I have to run a poorly named command, "Reset Play Count." Then, I have to manually scroll through my entire music list to find the items that have a little explanation point next to them. Bad job Apple for making this such a painful thing to do!
Posted by: snyhol | May 19, 2008 10:43 AM
Related post from Ryan Tomayko: Administrative debris, aka integrating controls as content through hypermedia (a step further from making the UI content-aware — you transform the UI into content).
Posted by: Leonardo Boiko | May 19, 2008 3:32 PM
I've never been a big fan of UI... Maybe I'm not the "enterprise software" kind... But all the same, I believe a good interface gives clients and users a sense of control over the product theyre using, but I don't think Contextual UI is something new. It has always been around, we just can't get it right...
Posted by: Carlo V. Pasaol II | May 19, 2008 6:19 PM
I think this is a BAD article.
First, it does not talk as much about "contextuality" as it talks about minimalism in user interface.
Second, it compares apples to oranges. Obviously, the value of uniformity or minimalism of user interface greatly depends on the purpose and complexity of the applications being considered. What is good for more complex applications that people use to do their job may be extremely bad for simpler applications used just for fun. And vice versa...
Third, this article is not as much about UI or usability as it is about Apple vs. Microsoft, and its bias is obvious.
I think I could keep counting, but it does not seem to be worth the trouble...
BTW, saying that Microsoft promoted UI uniformity because users were considered to be stupid is probably the most idiotic statement in this article. The Microsoft's flagship applications were (and still are) catered toward business users (i.e. toward M$ main revenue source), and by no way does Microsoft treat users of those apps as dummies. What Microsoft really does by advocating uniform user interfaces is recognizing the simple fact that all those users are extremely BUZY BY DOING THEIR WORK and do not have time for "playful exploratory learning" of each new application they try.
BAD article... :-(
Posted by: Yarik | May 20, 2008 10:18 PM
[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]
Age Of Conan Gold aoc gold
http://www.buyfastgold.com
http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com
http://www.aocsale.com
http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com
http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com
Age Of Conan Gold Age Of Conan Gold Age Of Conan Gold buy age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold buy age of conan gold aoc gold aoc gold aoc gold
buy aoc gold buy aoc gold
Posted by: aocgold | June 5, 2008 2:09 AM
http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2008/06/bricks_of_gold_truncheons_of_l.html
Posted by: vito | June 12, 2008 11:50 AM
ok good site. i like it
Posted by: hub | June 13, 2008 6:46 AM