#User interfaces
59 messages in this thread
My point is, *THERE ARE NO AMIGA GUIDELINES*. There's only rabid Amigoids who
claim there are, and who complain that programs like ICP "don't conform." My
world-view says that at least a third of my customers have 1.3 and will never
upgrade. CBM CATS' policy is "although we've dropped support for 1.3, we
recommend making applications that continue to work under 1.3." Yes, ICP is
based on a very old and crusty "standard" of code handed out by RJ Mical a
zillion years ago.
As for ICP, believe it or not, it's interface is very carefully considered. If
you've got ideas for a replacement, I'm all ears! Keep some of these design
constraints in mind: you need to pick files for conversion. You can pick
multiple files. You can automatically select all files or all recognizable 3D
files. You can set an output directory. You need to select drives, drawers and
files. You need to select an output format. You need to be able to see a list
of files that will be converted, to remove items from that list, and to clear
that list. You probably want to see many of these filenames and paths
on-screen, but that's up to you.
"There are no Amiga Guidelines"
(Gazes at "Amiga User Interface Style Guide" and wonders what it could
possibly be about then…)
Actually, I've been spending a bit of time with that manual (Amiga User
Interface Style Guide). I wonder what it's really all about then. Did I
miss something? <big g>
Robb
Yeah, I know about that. It's too little, too late. And can you name any
programs that adhere to it? And how many CBM-supplied programs set a
wonderfully bad example by ignoring it in detail and spirit?
John,
Sometimes you go off the deep-end.
Have you ever read the User Interface Style Guide? It is a good document
that is designed to give developers an 'idea' as to how Amiga applications
should work. It also says, if you bothered to read it, that it was not
intended to be a strict guideline and that even Commodore would not
necessarily observe it.
The point being, interfaces should be best designed for the application.
The idea of interface standardization is a good idea on the whole, but in
practice it is not very practical. Could you imagine Caligari 24 adhering
to the style guide? SCALA is another product that would be *RUINED* by
compliance. Yet, on the other hand there are programs that greatly
benefit from a style guide.
Flexibility in design and use is what attracts me to the Amiga. A strict
stupid interface (ala Mac) is not for me.
Flame Commodore all you want, but for me, I think they have covered the
style issue quite well. Pay it lip service, produce a document that
describes what they think is a good interface and move on.
John, sometimes your cynicisn gets the best of you.
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
So what you're saying is, CBM can waste its time on "standards" documents,
never bother to set a good example, and then simply point to the document
whenever they see something they don't like. Meanwhile, they're going off on
tangents for 2.0- and 3.0-only APIs for who knows what. Where's their sense of
purpose?
Hi again John-
I think what a lot of people would like to see in your interface is a
custom screen and pretty buttons with the same functionality. A lot more
real estate with more files and choices visible in each window.
Action by double clicking is your best feature. When ever I try and sell
someone on your stuff instead of Pixel Pro-thingie, I almost always get a
reaction of "cheesey" or "Hokey". After prodding the person, I really
think it is just a visual perception.
Are you going to be at pasedena?
–Paul < Motorola Inside >
John,
There is a difference between 'standards' and 'laws'. The Macintosh is an
example of 'laws' to an extreme. An interface should be written that best
serves the function of the program, and most importantly the user. A
"Guideline" from the manufacturer stating how they "think" an application
should work under the Amiga OS is useful in the situation where you are
attracting new developers to he platform.
If such a document had existed earlier, perhaps some of the early
productivity packages for the Amiga would have been less "PC like" and
more "Intuitive", if you'll pardon the pun.
I believe Commodore attempted to follow the "guidelines", but I certainly
would not damn them if they violated it for whatever their reason.
Guidelines are not laws John.
To me, especially now, there are much bigger fish to fry. We need a
standard for playing digital video from disk. We need official support
for the ANIM7 IFF file. The list goes on and on.
Besides, the way things are going it is likely that you will be arguing
interface issues with the 3 or so folks that are left. I mourn the loss
of engineering to companies like 3DO (Andy Finkel), Mike Sinz, (SCALA),
Chris Green (Bethesda Softworks),… and several others.
This interface argument is really moot at this point don't you think?
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
Apple doesn't come to your office and strangle you if you write a bad program.
And I doubt CBM's guidelines "attracted a new developer to the platform." Hah!
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, this interface issue is entirely moot. Sales past,
present and future have never sent me the message that an interface cleanup
would affect my profits. Similarly, I think CBM management came in with an axe
and made the same decision about all the software engineers who were dinking
around making gadgets look different. Putting myself in their shoes, it makes
perfect sense why they'd be axed. These people were screwing around on things
that had nothing to do with CBM's profitability or even useful R & D.
What?
Maybe you are just up late or something. This argument has progressed
further and further off the deep end. Now it's gotten all the way off.
There aren't any Software Engineers who were spending any significant time
making gadgets look different (at least, not since 1989 or so), nor any
"screwing around on things that had nothing to do with" what uppoer
management directed them to do (whether or not that affects profitability.
I can't think of one person who had anything to do with UI who was laid
off. What in the world are you talking about?
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
I've never been to CBM PA, so you've got the jump on me there. All I see is the
Dev Con notes and AmigaMail. Let's see, contents of Jan/Feb: Memory Pools,
Boopsi in v3.0, AmigaGuide 101, A1200 RAM cards, Game Port Form Factor.
Mar/Apr: Even Faster AmigaDOS I/O, Quick Interrupts, Features of V39 GadTools,
Menu Verify, Creating Virtual Voices with Amiga Audio. All I said was, if I
put myself in a bean counter's shoes, I can see why they didn't mind cutting a
bunch of software people who did things like this. I didn't say it was right.
And if you're telling me that BOOPSI and Gadtools and Commodities Exchange were
directives from Irv, then I am truly confused. And I woke up quite early
yesterday to watch "Barney & Friends", yesterday's episode was indeed titled
"The Queen of Imagination." 🙂
So what you're saying is that the documentation focused on stuff you think
which deserve to be cut, so that must be what the engineers are doing, so
engineers deserve to be cut. Your premise is an opinion you are entitled
to. Your conclusion is poorly drawn.
The engineers spend a small percentage of their time writing docs. The
used to get a lot of help from CATS. They tried to write on topics which
weren't documented well on the theory that every part of the system, no
matter how "important to the bottom line" should be documented so that
nothing in third party development is left to chance of necessity.
CATS, by the way, is mostly gone (from a dozen or two to, I think, five).
So if you're objection was that developer support and programmer
documentation was superfulous (sp) to the bottom line, then you're
judgement does appear to have been shared by Commodore management in the
face of lean times.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Let's turn this around for a moment. You tell me what the software engineers
were working on. Of that "dozen or two" people, how many were devoted to what
tasks?
From my perspective, from reading AmigaMail, the DevCon notes, and absoluting
refusing to subscribe to the drivel on BIX, and from watching the Mac and
Windows markets closely, I could not see the rhyme and reason in the OS
software that CBM was developing.
John,
I am scratching my head, and wondered who did something nasty to your
Wheaties. What in the _world_ are you saying?
The AmigaMail articles are a great reference tool, and further are often
interesting reading. Do you really think people were hired to just sit
around and write articles about Boopsi? Or could it be that each of the
folks were given an opportunity to write about what they thought was
interesting or often never discussed items about the Amiga? I have found
many nice things in those articles and frankly I don't appreciate your
attitude toward them, or the Commoodre engineers and CATS people who wrote
them. What you have them write about? What do you think is more
important?
Just what is your point in this discussion? Are you trying to make people
who already feel bad about what is happening in the Amiga market feel
worse? I guess I just don't get it.
Commodore management layed off engineering because they _the management_
felt that the company would not survive if they didn't make the company
profitable. They had already cut their sales force to nothing, what else
is there to cut? R&D is the most expensive item, and thus the bean
counters in their infinately stupid wisdom destroyed engineering. It had
nothing to do with what the engineers were doing, or what they were
working on.
In short John, you really don't know what you are talking about, and in
the process you are probably hurting a lot of peoples feelings. I rarely
say things like this in a public forum… but in this case, could you
kindly just shut up?
Thanks.
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
My point is, I do think CBM software development was often misguided. I think
they were working on things that had nothing to do with the long- or short-term
profitability or success of the Amiga. For all the whining that went on about
the short-sighted nature of bean-counter decisions made at CBM, as soon as you
questioned the direction of software development, whew, it was like belching at
the opera.
Look at the bright side. If CBM ever regains a software development force, it
will probably come from people who've been exposed to software development and
design on other platforms.
"Sales past, present and future have never sent me the message that an
interface cleanup would affect my profits."
HERE IS THE MESSAGE!
I have puposly sold Pixel 3D Pro 50 to 1 over Interchange Plus 2.0
because of the interface, and ease of use.
I understand from my distributors you will ship 3.0 shortly, if the
inteface has not changed, I only have 2 customers that will be willing to
put up with the interface. Others will wait for the new version of Pixel.
Even though the programs capabilities are not even close, in conversion.
Forrest
And I guess that means that you think it's OK to sell a program that's not
going to do what the customer wants to do, and it doesn't affect your
reputation or your bottom line? I get endless numbers of customers who curse
their dealers and the magazines for leading them astray about what Pixel can
do… they're upset that they've dropped $100+ for it, and then they call me
to buy a real conversion program.
If you said "if you added a spin-any-object-around and autotracing then you'd
sell more", I'd believe you. It's an entirely different question to me as to
whether it would be worth it, balancing effort against profits.
What alot of my customers want is a program, that is simple to use for
converting objects from Imagine, and other formats to Lightwave 3D. A
realtime preview is also a plus. Pixel 3D offers these, your program
definantly does a better job converting, but for most of my customers,
that have little time to learn the workbench, let alone programs with hard
to pickup interfaces, such as Interchange Plus, and Image Master. I offer
them a choice and show both, but recomend the one I think best suits there
needs.
I like others on here are just suggesting, that you consider re-making
your interface for your program, and make it easier to use. I did not
mention anything about not changing the price, if you feel the extra
effort on your part will not increase your income by increased sales
(which I think it would), up the price.
Again myself and the others are just making observations.
Good Luck and success to you.
Forrest
What's hard to understand about ICP? You're telling me that someone smart
enough or dogged enough to learn a program like Imagine or LightWave suddenly
becomes dull-witted and can't understand a glorified file requester like ICP?
As far as I have ever seen, there *are* plenty of file requester embedded in
Amiga applications that are *more* complicated than ICP! And Imagine is not
winning any awards for UI simplicity, either. LightWave is a wall of buttons,
mysterious mouse clicks and barely documented key sequences.
Here's what you do to convert an Imagine object to LightWave. Double-click
ICP_Start. ICP's window appears. You use the file requester to find the file
you want, you double-click it. It moves to the selected files list. You choose
LightWave as your output format, from another scrolling list. You press
Convert. Presto, it's done. Gee, that's much harder than learning how to use
Pick Points mode within the Detail Editor of Imagine, or how to map a texture
bitmap to an object in LightWave.
And to add insult to injury, Pixel will do a terrible job of converting that
Imagine object to LightWave.
"I have purposely sold Pixel 3D pro 50 to 1 over Interchange Plus 2.0
because of the interface, and ease of use."
So… what I hear you saying is that because YOU have an interface hangup,
you're screwing your customers out of higher performance software. Sure am
glad *I* don't have a dealer with such a bizarre approach to sales. Mine
sells me what I need to get the job done. Maybe that's why he's my dealer,
come to think of it. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
I guess we should be thankful that he at least demos the inferior software
before he sells it. 🙂
<grinning>
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ah,
Tis nice to sit in the cat bird seat eh Ben? Rarely do you answer the
phone to listen to the dealers that have purchased from you. In fact,
your company has an interesting history of not being able to ship when
they said they could, and not being able to charge what they say they
would. I remember an emergency we had that required 'good support' from
Black Belt, and what we got was 'zip'. I also quite well remember you
telling me in email how it was a 'customer service' matter and that you
were not interested.
Fact is Ben, dealers have to often times select from a range of products
to stock shelves. Considering the way Mr. Foust has treated anyone who
has the smallest criticism of his software, I can understand Mr.
McKinney's attitude, and frankly I support him. Why? Because if a
developer will NOT listen to a dealer, he sure has hell will not listen to
a user. The dealers have to put up with the users first you know, and as
you correctly pointed out, selling what the customer needs is clearly in
the customers perception of the company, not just the product.
I only mentioned the above because I have dealt with Black Belt as a
dealer and found the experience less than pleasurable. You could say "we
felt screwed' when we were charged full retail price. You could say we
felt 'screwed' when the item promised to us didn't arrive on time as
promised, and when I called again was told "Oh that, oh, we don't do next
day delivery." I reminded the nice lady that indeed she said she coould
when we ordered the product. It is ancient history now Ben, and one that
I did complain to you about in email.
I guess I don't appreciate you ripping the guts out of Mr. McKinney in a
public forum telling him he is 'screwing' his customers. I guess I felt
it necessary to mention how your company supported a dealer who was trying
to do as you suggest, and get the best product for the job. I got an
unhappy customer in the deal, and almost lost a $25k sale.
I am sure you will find a way to tell me that I am screwing my customers
for not stocking your product. Tis ok by me. I think ImageFX from GVP
has got it right, and NO ONE has ever brought it back. A good interface,
a good company and frankly a damn good program.
I might add that ASDG treats their dealers quite well too.
As far as Interchange Plus goes, if someone needs it, I'll order it. I
won't stock it. However, I do have Pixel 3D Pro on the shelf. Guess I am
one of those schlock dealers eh?
Good. See you in Indy land. 🙂
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
Mark, I think you've fallen off the deep end. Really. Cat bird seat,
indeed.
it's not that "we don't do next day delivery" – I guess that's what you
want to remember, but in FACT, we didn't have any way to do next day
delivery. You apparently have little or no conception of where we are. You
were not told you could have next day delivery – UPS only began offering
it here about three weeks ago, fella. FedEx does jack sugar for service
here, and as for the post offices "fast" service… hah! not bloody
likely. :^)
I have more than enough on my plate than to be able to handle CS things on
my own. I have full time people to do that, and I expect you to use them,
if you want that kind of support. We have free dealer copies of IM and the
PC stuff as well… (so what is this full-price thing… all we ask for is
a copy of your business license.. you DO have one, don't you???) We have
free brochures, 30 day net terms for Amiga dealers withOUT a credit check,
and the usual (40%) discounts in place for them (you can get more with
orders from distributors, of course, if you're patient). As for our
history of shipping on time, mea culpa, sorta, sometimes. Then again,
we've shipped more Amiga s/w than most Amiga companies, we're still here,
we produce good quality stuff, and we put a LOT of effort into our stuff.
I really don't give a flying fig if you don't appreciate me "ripping the
guts" out of mr mckinny. Whether I did or not. I repeat, my dealer sells
me what I need to get the job done, without trying to be the user
interface police, the company police, or anything else. If he tried any of
that cr*p on me, I'd find a new dealer and quickly, too. I'm an informed
consumer. If some twerp showed me product A and said it does A-Z, then
showed me product B and said "it does a,b, x and Q, but it's pretty and
easy" I'd probably just laugh and ask him why he was wasting the shelf
space carrying it (I know, and YOU know, just what he'd tell me, too…
it's for the newbies who know no better and can't be troubled to learn a
gadget from a key).
As for the rest of your missive, GVP, ASDG, ICP and our stuff, you said it
all, Mark – good luck. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Yeah, yeah, we've all got a hard life. Developers get to live with "dealers"
who demand no-charge, unmarked copies of programs before they'll sell it to
anyone, yet won't bother to send you any proof that they're a dealer, and
customers who want every imaginable reduction: educational, non-profit, and GSA
discounts, free demo disks.
Customers and dealers who call to "brain-pick" because they don't understand
the difference between AD Pro, Imagemaster and ICP, or what CrossDOS does, or
how to archive files, who expect me to tell them which 3D program is best, on
my dime… or who order at 3:30 on Friday afternoon and want overnight
delivery.
Distributors who ask for 30 days but pay in 90 if they feel like it, who'll
sweep the floor to fill boxes to get return credit, who want an "exclusive" in
Lower Slobovia if you let them duplicate the product themselves…
I certainly understand that dealers get their share of fun, too. I'm sure
you've never had a customer walk away unhappy, or that an order shipped late,
etc.
Please, take a moment, start from scratch, give ICP a new interface. After you
do, I'll start asking for features, and you can try to add them in a
consistent, friendly way. I'd be happy to simply add (or decide to eradicate)
those things you can do with ICP right now. I hope you can do this clearly
enough so that Forrest can understand, or you'll hurt my sales.
Ben,
As I also stated, I get the customer what they need to get the job done.
The reason I mentioned your program was becasue of ease of use.
Most of my base is a mix of Corporate, and Individual busnesses, that
have deadlines to meet, and when they have the need to convert file
formats such as TIFF, some of them only have Windowz experiance, and
ignore the Amiga as a computer all together, of these people, when I show
them both ADPRO and Imaga Master, and show them how to convert a TIFF
image in both packages, and they see in ADPRO, how simple it is to hit
LOAD, SCALE, SAVE. It makes an impact, if they have more needs than what I
show them, I supply the package that meets there needs. I am glad to see
you have a Dearler that meets your needs also.
It is sort of wild that you say I have an interface hangup, when all I
have done is try to make suggestions that I thought yourself and John
being developers would like to here. I am apologize, if I got you peaved
by saying I dont like your interface, but I am used to dealing with
developers that like to here input, and respond kindly to it.
Again it is a shame to have to tell a customers that need an Image
processing package, that this one has all the capabilities you want, but
they put have there manual on disk, and you cant find a button to scale
for the light of day, and theres this one that is easy to use, but it
dosent do everything you need, but the company will support you. Luckily
It looks like there is a new lot of developers like Nova, that will
listen, and implement changes, and try to give you both power and ease of
use.
Forrest
John,
I did NOT say that the Guidelines attracted new developers, please read
all of the words John. I said that if a new developer were to appear on
the Amiga that a document such as this would allow a new developer an idea
of what an Amiga application is. Where did you get in my message that it
would attract new developers??
Obvisouly you and I disagree on this issue. It is clear to me that you
are not really open to discusion on the matter.
You should know by now that interfaces are often more important to people
than the actual engine. A sad, but very true reality.
There are packages that are more powerful than ImageFX, Black Belt's comes
to mind. However, if I need to get a job done, I use ImageFX because I
CAN USE IT without a manual and without getting lost in sub-menus etc.
Blaming Commodore is not your answer John. The answer is to either listen
to your customers, or quit messing with Amiga software at all.
-mark=
Otto Pilot Engaged..
You said, "a guideline from the manufacturer stating how they think an
application should work under the Amiga OS is useful in the situation where you
are attracting new developers to the platform."
I took that to mean, CBM was attracting new developers with the guidelines.
I'm not blaming Commodore for my troubles… and I'm here talking about this
with you, so I'm hardly avoiding discussion. The vast majority of Amiga
developers are not here discussing their interface choices. You think that
they wouldn't have strong opinions *if they were here*?
You seem to be taking a very simplistic approach to determining whether I'm
"listening" to my users. Because I haven't changed to look like an entirely
different product (Pixel Pro), you think I'm not listening. Or because I don't
have the Amiga look-and-feel du jour, as defined by some shareware DirUtil
written by someone with too much time on their hands.
'as defined by some shareware DirUtil written by someone with too much
time on their hands.'
Well then, what do you call _your_ GUI 'du jour'?
(Esp. since I have found _many_ of those 'sharware' utilties far more
'Intuitive' out of the box.)
BTW, I _never_ asked for a Pixel Pro clone – that would be a waste of time
and programming. I merely suggested you try to help both your product and
the Amiga platform by adhering more closelyy to the _few_ standards that
currently exist.
Finally, my interpretation of your product is based on v2.0. (Since I got
it one week before you released 3.0, it'll be awhile before I send you the
$50 for the upgrade. Of course, since you seem to show so little concern
[one might almost call it bitterness?] about how the users feel about your
_user_ interface…..) If you _have_ improved the user interface then so
much the better.
Thanks for listening,
Erik Flom
As old as I've admitted it to be, ICP's interface was once one of the
"standards" that someone held up for review. I wish I could "wish" it away, too
– but the dank reality of it is that it would take a month of work to revamp,
start to finish, and I don't think it's worth the effort. That's not counting
the time to re-write the manual, and the cost to reprint it. I know I'd start
to cry when after the new interface shipped, I'd get those phone calls from
users asking me why the H*l did I change it, they liked the old interface, and
now they curse me because they have to learn a new one.
As for 2.0 to 3.0 upgrades, I'm very accomodating. It's tough trying to keep
everyone happy. We announced v3.0 about a year after 2.0. Not a blistering
release schedule, but there's always going to be people who bought it two weeks
before. ICP v3.0 has not yet shipped, so you certainly didn't get it a week
before it did. 🙂 We usually have a kind of grandfather process, where if
you bought it within a certain time before the new release, we send you a free
upgrade. Because we haven't shipped yet, I haven't looked through the database
of direct sales to see if you're within whatever limit I'd pick. Now if you
have more wisdom about how to solve this problem, I'm all ears. You must
release that some Amiga dealer, somewhere, still has IC v1.0 on the shelves in
the 1989 package.
Again, I don't know why you think I have no concern for user's opinions about
our interface. I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of teenagers; who define
"not listening" as "not agreeing with me and immediately carrying out what I
want." First of all, I'm here talking to all comers. Is my competition here?
Have they ever been here? And just how many Amiga developers *are* still here,
talking about their product? Second, that flyer you got in the mail has a
"survey" blank on the bottom. Every time we do a mailing, I always make a spot
for people to jot down their comments, and I read every single one of them.
Mark,
While the User Interface Style Guide might be a decent guideline on how an
application should look and work, CBM, by example, is saying "here's the
style guide, you don't have to follow it, we don't". Case in point, the
light source is dictated to come from the upper left … take a look at
the mouse pointer.
-sja
OK, point taken. Far be it from me to be considered a rabid Amigaoid.
(Given that I've been called a rabid PC'er by Ben, I guess I've run the
gamut, eh? :^)
While the ICP interface may be 'carefully considered', it bears little
resemblance to either of the 2 predominant GUI's found on new Amiga
programs. (PixelPro gets good reviews mainly because it follows a
Toaster-esque UI – surely not for it's quality of conversion.)
Personally, having worked around RJ in the Lynx days, I'd commend you for
following his guidelines. HOWEVER:
That was then, and this is now.
_ALL_ GUI's have undergone dramatic transformations in the last 5-8 years.
While it is nice to support that 'crusty' 1/3 of your past client base by
limiting your program to a WB 1.3 conformant style, you are doing a GREAT
dis-service to the majority of your users by not fully supporting the many
new, powerful features of WB 2.04 & greater (specifically, use of the ASL
is a must.)
You are also hurting sales of your own product.
By forcing new purchaser's to conform to 'yet another' User Interface on
the Amiga, you make it hard for them to tell their buddies to 'go out and
buy it' if it took too long to learn. (Like it or not, User Interface is
_very_ important these days.)
Here's my biggest suggestion:
Do a 2.0 version, and just do support patches for the 1.3 version.
Your product will have wider appeal, it'll look better & be easier to use,
and in some small way, you'll help drag the Amiga – kicking and screaming
– into the 90's.
(I'll get back to you later about specifics. :^)
Erik Flom
What are the "two predominant GUIs" on new Amiga programs? I don't think Pixel
Pro has much of a GUI. I don't think any program with walls of buttons
labelled with text as a high-tech cutting edge GUI. I don't think the Toaster
wins any awards for user interface either.
Actually, I don't think RJ had any good guidelines. Under the hood, his code
was terrible. Although the interface appearance didn't change much, the guts
for ICP v3.0 excised as much as possible the strange code that RJ once made.
OK, tell me how you'd add the ASL file requester to ICP.
Amiga users are ready and willing to overlook major failures in the central
purpose of products (see: Pixel Pro), so your contention that they'll reject a
program because the GUI doesn't resemble some other program doesn't hold much
water in my view.
What did you do in the Lynx market? I interviewed at Epyx shortly before that
project, but didn't want to spend my life writing games for 12 year olds. I do
have a Lynx.
John,
As this is in the User forum and not in your area of Vendor and I do NOT
own any versions of interchange nor have I seen it used…may I interject
here? I saw Eriks post as a suggestion as to how to make your product
more appealing to him (and in his view, others too), what he suggested was
cleaning up the interface to more modern standards (which you admit you
are holding it back for older OS users), among other things. Your
responces were very defensive and confrontational, not very informative as
to way you would/could not implement the suggested changes. I see this
attitude prevalent among developers (not only Amiga). I believe Erik was
offering constructive critism not condemnation.
As to holding the interface or product development back for < 2.x OS
users, Black Belt Systems, Aforums, ASDG and others have upgraded their
products to 2.x only and it doesn't seem to hurt their sales, Ben has said
repeatedly that he will not even support < 2.x users with his products.
As I said I do not own any Syndesis Corp products, and this is my humble
views on a post to you concerning your product and your responce, and
thought an outsiders views may be welcome (well, maybe not!).
…Steve
====>>> Motorola 68030 Inside <<<====
To my eyes, Erik didn't really suggest anything… All I remember is "use the
ASL requester". For ICP, it's irrelevant. There is no file requester there
now. We could add one, but it would supplant the very interface of ICP as it
stands now, and it would eliminate a dozen features. So I told him about some
of the many things you can do with this elementary interface. I asked him to
come up with a new interface that would address these methods of using
InterChange. So far, I haven't seen a response.
As for developer's attitudes about their products… well, you should expect
that. If they care at all, they live and breathe that product. When some
wet-behind-the-ears Internet slacker levels a half-baked criticism at them,
they might get irritated. (I'm not commenting on Erik's response, I'm just
describing the most annoying form of "criticism" that I see. And I ignore all
of it.)
I'm always glad to discuss the interface of any product I'm interested in,
including my own. If I seem too confrontational, well, you should I expect
that I have storng opinions, because this is what I do for a living.
If you like, let's create a new interface for InterChange Plus. We'll start
from scratch. We'll talk about what *I* think ICP does and is good for, and
we'll talk about what's important to *you*, and we'll all talk about what we
think *others* might want to do.
John,
As I said I have never seen Interchange or its interface so the
question is academic to me. Eriks biggest suggestion was use of a file
requestor and your response ealier was:
>>Keep some of these design constraints in mind: you need to pick files
>>for conversion. You can pick multiple files. You can automatically
>>select all files or all recognizable 3D files. You can set an output
>>directory. You need to select drives, drawers and files. You need to
>>select an output format. You need to be able to see a list of files that
>>will be converted, to remove items from that list, and to clear that
>>list. You probably want to see many of these filenames and paths
>>on-screen, but that's up to you.
That sounds like Khalids Aldosura File requestor! Here again I do not
know if that would work or not but I took your response to him as
defensive and unproductive…maybe I read something in there that wasn't.
Am not trying to make an argument or be pushy, just trying to add my .02!
…Steve
====>>> Motorola 68030 Inside <<<====
The two predominant GUIs are the 2.0 style, and the 'Toaster-look'.
(While I'm not a big fan of the Toaster look, it is a popular platform,
and people have become used to its shaded buttons. PixPro may not have
much of a GUI, but it's closer to what the target audience is expecting.)
There are a number of other 'roll your own' looks, but most new
development seems to be follwing one of those 2 styles.
I don't know what kind of coder RJ was, but he was a nice guy. I was a
game tester during the development stage of Lynx – I was there the day
Atari forced Epyx out of business. (One might question why you're using
his _5+ year old_ code in your project anyway?)
OK, I'm gonna fire up IC+ (v2.0 mind you), and give you my impressions:
1. NO MENU: Like it or not, you really _should_ provide menu equivalents &
hot keys (menus are a great help tool for the user to remember which hot
key corresponds to which funstion) for common functions like Load, Save,
Start, Load Modules, etc. (& given that there's lots of shareware out
there with menu structures, you won't get much compassion from me about
'how hard it is' to do menus. Is this another limitation imposed by 1.3
compatibility?)
2. On-line help: Pushing the help key brings up an about box. Wow. How
about something more 'helpful'? (Well, at least I now know who to curse at
for coding such a painful interface. :^)
3. Look & Feel: Totally inconsistent. Arrow gadgets overflow their
bounding box. Some buttons have a 2.0 look, while most do not. Disk,
Drawer, & File selection is all bass-ackwards and does not conform to any
UI I've seen in recent years. This 'Next Disk' thingie is a waste of real
estate (What about all my ASSIGNS?). (This is a perfect place for the ASL!
Just invoke it to fill a std pathname field, and a std filename field.
Lose the file requester from your control panel – it's unnecessary with an
ASL requester.) The 'Disk' requester for the destination file is similarly
obfuscated-it should _at least_ behave the same way as your source
requester. In general, all the fields should be at least twice as long,
especially for pathname. (There seems to be alot of wasted real estate
[like the 1/2" of greyness seprating the 2 sides of your control panel.
Huh, no borders, no graphic seperators, just greyness….] that could be
put to better use.)
(BTW, I just noticed that when I scale the window w/ the sizing gadget,
your control panel overwrites the borders of the window until the system
redraws them for you.)
4. Loader/Saver modules: The dinky, micro-window that shows about 4-5
lines of modules doesn't make sense. This is one of the key parts of your
program, but it looks like it was added as an afterthought.
5. Why do I have to use ICP_Start? I should be able to load the modules as
a group from within ICP. This does not appear to be possible.
6. System message window: No scroll bar?!? Also, why do I get info about
which loaders are being invoked in a std output window, not your System
Message window?
7. Stop button: All I can say is get an artist.
In all, you've got a really great product that is hampered by a 'cheesy'
interface. Your quote 'users are ready and willing to overlook major
failures in …products…' is quite true. Let me turn it around:
I walk into the store. I'm looking to buy a conversion program. I try
product A that has a nice GUI that I am familiar with. I then try Program
B. It looks like it's got some nice features, but I'll be dammed if I can
figure out how to use it! Which do you think I'm going to walk out with?
People _will_ ignore major features and benefits, just because they're
used to using a certain thing. Windows and the Mac are perfect examples of
this – people will buy things they can use easily and without frustration,
they don't wan't to have to spend time learning _yet another_ person's
idea of the 'perfect interface.'
The standardization of application interface is one of the key reasons
these platforms have caught on. People who would argue that they are
'constrained' by these standards have not examined the many ways these
standards can be implimented, yet retain a general conformance to the
predominant GUI style.
Oh well, just my $.02. Don't take it too personally. You're not the only
programmer I have thrown barbs at – I was bashing Ben awhile back for his
decidedly 'unique' choice of interface for ImageMaster. (I was a full-time
game tester for several years, so I'm a professional whiner. :^)
Thanks for listening,
Erik Flom
'No' Amiga style guidelines? While not enforced, they are there and you
should use of it what you can while maintaining your application
functionality. I think Eric's comments are about the ugly interface as
opposed to apps like Final Copy, Autopilot, Amiback, all of Soft Logic's
apps, and sorry to say, Pixel 3d. Use the same objects in your app, but
make it more 2.0-3.0ish….
-Jonathan
InterChange itself does not open a separate window for a file requester. If
anyone hasn't seen it, it resembles the Apple File Exchange program on the Mac.
One large Workbench window, one glorified file requester. That's all of ICP.
On the left is the meat of the file requester, you see a list of files, there's
a 'next disk' button, and gadgets to enter the disk/path/filename yourself. On
the right, there's a similar sized list, it holds the filename paths of the
files you want to batch-convert. Press the Convert button and it converts them
to the format you're chosen in another scrolling list that's always on-screen
at the bottom of the window.
I've already explained that we need to continue to support 1.3. I know my user
base, a lot of them are using original Toasters and they'll most likely never
upgrade them to 2.0.
People ask for a "2.0 look". Sometimes they're more worried about that than
any functionality. Why? I dunno. They're self-appointed interface police.
If the very few buttons on ICP were suddenly more 2.0-ish, what's the
difference? BTW, we do have 2.0-appearing boolean buttons and checkmarks and
pseudo-multiple choice buttons on several other Converter windows. Exact same
functionality, minor appearance change. What's the difference?
John,
There is one way to stop the griping about the interface on Interchange.
Get rid of it completly and put in an Arexx port. Any fool can hack
together an interface with CanDo or AmigaVision Pro. (well, most fools)
If you did this you could even ship a few different interfaces with the
program and let the user choose the one they want to use. :^)
If you email me a screenshot of the current interface I'll send you a few
examples of other layouts that will have all the same functions. Of course
if you want me to make you a functional interface it'll cost you a copy of
the new version of Interchange. ;^) Version 3 ???
Interested?
The good news is, ICP v3.0 has a full ARexx implementation, you can do anything
from ARexx that you can do from the GUI.
Of course even with an Arexx port you'll still have people complaining
about the interface. Unless of course there's a way to run the program
without the interface. Guess it's just a matter of personal preference.
Yes, no matter how a program changes, you'll have someone complaining about the
interface. InterChange is not in a position where everyone complains about the
interface. I balance these complaints against the praise: the endless thanks I
hear from people who are happy to have a batch-oriented conversion product,
from people who appreciate the subtle details in our 3D translation, from
people who've saved endless hours of work because we translate accurately and
reliably.
John…
Seems to me you're arguing and ignoring most of the valuable input being
offered here by what is, essentially, your client base. At the very least, a
lot of the people here are potential clients. Others have evaluated your
product and passed it by based on what they see on top (the interface). If this
sort of feedback isn't treated with the seriousness that I (as a user) think
that you (as a developer) should be treating it with, then I guess that your
balance sheet will reflect the attitude in the end.
I believe I've heard you say that you don't believe your UI has affected your
profits directly. I don't possibly see how you can draw that conclusion, based
on what people are telling you. Simply put, if people pass your software by
because of the interface, then they aren't buying it, and you don't make as
much money as you could possibly. I'd say that's losing money, wouldn't you?
As for "self appointed UI police", there are no people better qualified to
judge a user interface than a user. Please remember that.
Jim
Believe me when I say that I listen to these comments very carefully. I may
disagree with people, I may ask them to defend what they're suggesting, I may
ask them to stand in my shoes for a while.
I don't think Amiga software buyers are as fussy as you might indicate.
InterChange is not a drawing program, it's a glorified file requester when it
comes to the UI. It's not rocket science to use. It's an order of magnitude
less complicated to understand than the Workbench itself, than any telecom
program, than IconEdit. What these "self appointed UI police" are complaining
about is that the gadgets don't look completely 2.0. Big deal! That much did
change for ICP v3.0.
I just purchased ICP+ this weekend because I needed something to convert
3d stuff Accurately. I've had Pixel for a while now and never u/g to Pixel
Pro fortunately.
Your s/w is Very good at accurately converting 3d formats, and I'm sure I
will use often. It took me a lttle while to figure out, Kind of a flash
form the past. I've seen much better UI from PD or shareware.
I think what your users are trying to say is there is NOTHING 'glorified'
about your file requester…………..
I can't see how this would be that hard or expensive to bring into the
90's. Can't it just make a call to a more standard file requester?
….John
>As for "self appointed UI police", there are no people better qualified
>to judge a user interface than a user. Please remember that.
Not that it applies in the context of the immediate argument, but I beg to
differ. There is a scientific and artistic discipline which concerns
itself with human factors and with human-computer interface, and the
experts in that field argue convincingly that what the user says s/he
wants is not always to be trusted at face value. Note that this is
drastically different from techies who claim to know what is "better" for
the user. One departure from what the user claims to want is made because
of a desire to stick to "what works," "what is easy to implement," or what
is "elegant," while the other departure is made because it comes from
watching what the users do rather than what they say and, in some way,
genuinely makes it easier to understand and to use.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Dale,
I've worked with quite a few Human Factors people in the nuclear industry,
and as soon as I hear two agree on anything, I'll let you know.
The thing they do best is to assure that the rules are consistently
applied, so there is a good benefit from the discipline. The problem is
that they typically cannot handle areas where the technology makes their
choice a bad one, even if they would be normally right.
As to the ongoing discussion here, let me add my two cents worth. For
John, a while back I was interested in getting some file conversion and
image mainpulation software. I did consider ADPro, ImageMaster and
InterChange; I went with ADPro just because of the reasons people are
citeing here, and a magazine review. Boy, did I screw up, but I think it
brings home the point. The ADPro interface LOOKED easy to use, but you
just can't DO anything useful with it.
Sorry All, but even as an experienced user, I want both a useful, easy to
use GUI, AND powerful software. And don't feed me that 'but with
AREXX…' stuff either, as I don't have the time or inclination to learn
it. It is NOT a substitute for a good GUI, but I'm sure can be a
wonderful complement to one. Without a good GUI it is just a relatively
easy to program-in crutch for one.
I don't think I'm alone here, either. I just spent 8 intensive hours at a
Stranaham seminar with about 40 other amatuer and pro Toaster users, and
I'd say 20% had never *seen* Workbench, and another 40% were from
Videoland and could only do basic stuff. These people NEED a good GUI for
everything they get, and the Amiga market (read – vendors) will suffer if
they don't get one. They'll walk over and use their PC and Mac boat
anchors just because they are more comfortable there. They'll think
those are more powerful only because they can readily use what little the
systems can do.
At least most of the shareware and dirutil makers attempt to make their
stuff easy to use, almost making up for the lack of standardization.
Anyway, Dale, the above isn't directed at you or any individual for that
matter; I think Amiga vendors in general need to start listening a little
better, and to temper what they hear with a little common sense. Flame
off.
… Nate.
I think you've expressed some very valid ideas. One, that there's plenty of
users out there who have a tough time with any software, even the Workbench.
Two, that there's no "nuclear regulatory commission" out there to set a clear
standard for what a software application should look like. Three, that
programming in ARexx is not an option for the vast majority of users and that
it's not a substitute for an interface. Four, that people get confused about
what software can do for them. For example, InterChange is not anything like
Imagemaster or AD Pro. AD Pro and Imagemaster are bitmap image processing
programs; InterChange converts between 3D model formats. Yet I get this *all
the time*, for the past five years: many of my potential customers (as judged
by people who call us on the phone) do not grasp that difference between
converting between bitmap image formats and 3D model formats.
John,
Yes, I can see where the confusion is there. I think that a part of the
problem may also be the reviews that your and others' software recieves.
BTW, the industry sets our own standards, not what the NRC dictates.
We've had enough problems (some real but mostly percieved) that we are
amazingly good at setting them very high, yet implementing them in a
reasonable timeframe. To that extent, TMI (and Chernoble to a lesser
extent) is probably the best thing that ever happened. The oversight is
there should the need ever arise. Something about one of the benefits of
a TQ environment being both safer AND better runnning plants. Oops,
babbeling again…
Actually, I like these animated exchanges (pun intended). It gives us end
users a good glimpse of what's going on behind the scenes with the vendors
and developers of SW for our favorite platform. The collective dedication
on both sides of those that remain is amazing. I'm sure you'll agree that
that is, and has to be, a two-way street. Thanks.
… Nate.
Nate,
>gives us end users a glimpse…behind the scenes
I just got back from vacation and set AutoPilot to work (got headers only)
and saw this thread with 88 MESSAGES !!!!! In only 9 or 10 days !!!
Needless to say I downloaded all 88 messages and this has been a
fascinating journey.
I haven't seen anything like this since the days of Dave Cinage :^)
Rich – Flying the friendly AP skys
Rich,
Don't remember Dave. Like Rodney Massman, maybe?
… Nate.
Nate,
Rodney must have been before my time (3-4 months).
You don't remember Dave?!? Didn't you access the "Ramblings" section 2 or
3 months ago? Ask Erik, or Jonathon, or Bob Comer or, or, or, ….. :^)
Rich – Flying the friendly AP skys
Nate,
Imagemaster R/t ships beginning tomorrow. It has a new UI, it's much, much
easier to use, and you can "do something with it". :^) That is to say,
it's the most powerful image manipulation system ever released for the
Amiga, period, hands down, flat out. It also has built-in quick and more
detailed help, something which we expect to grow exponentially. And… you
can get it by turning in the front page of your AdPro manual and some
bucks (a considerable discount from retail, or even mail-order, in point
of fact). Or, if by chance you've already bitten the bullet and bought
Imagemaster, you can upgrade for $25 *or* for free if you still have your
"one free upgrade" coupon.
:^) Sorry, your message was just SO convenient to hang that on. :^))))
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
Anytime you need a straight man, just holler. 8{)
Glad to see that IM R/t is coming out. You've been awful quiet here
lately, so I think we all knew that this was getting close. Not that
implies anything, mind you!
Is the all-software manual (APAssist, help utility, hyper-text or
whateveryoucallit) shipping initially, or is that going to be released to
orderers at a later date?
… Nate.
Yes, the hypertext docs are there. They'll be growing, hopefully a great
deal – that's the whole point, after all – but there are a couple million
bytes or so already. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Millions, eh? You guys have been busy. At least you shouldn't get any
complaints about a poor looking print job.
LHA'd for ease of getting at, compressed by nature, or some
beads-and-chicken-bones installation routine?
A thought just occurred to me. Can these files be edited fairly easy for
making notes to ourselves? Using ApAssist, I assume. Wow, an electronic
manual with room in the margin for notes. What a feature that would be!
8{)
… Nate.
Ben,
Is there a printed manual, or is it on disk?
Forrest