Minds and Machines

Linux is catching up with Mac OS and the forthcoming Windows Vista in terms of looking great. Several videos around demonstrate how XGL and Compiz bring advanced 3D and animation effects to the Linux desktop. This is a big step forward for Linux and I’m sure this will have a positive impact on the Linux user community. But when I see comparisons between platforms, I also feel that something’s going wrong.

Design is important.

To some users functionality might be everything. Such users surely can do without eye candy. In the Linux world this attitude seems to be very common. But if Linux wants to broaden its user base, Linux developers have to consider design as an important factor. Obviously some developers finally jumped on the bandwagon. Which I really believe is great. But there is an aftertaste.
I think it’s save to say that Mac OS X has been leading the pack in showing what’s possible. Windows Vista and Linux clearly reproduce some of the features of OS X. That’s fine. They try to do it in a different way, they try to add something new, they try to create something even better. That’s exactly how good optimization works: take the already well designed parts and develop them further. But what sounds like a simple concept can get out of control very fast.
Some expert developers start to blow the design factor out of all proportions. They understood that Linux needs a better appearance, and with their expert knowledge about the graphic libraries they show the audience what’s technically possible. Think about wobbling windows and turning 3D cube desktops. Then they ask: “Doesn’t this look so much greater than Apple’s effects?”
If you’ve seen XGL in action, you have to admit – even as a hardcore Apple fan – the effects are impressive. And yes, they leave Apple behind. But while the graphics gurus are busy showing their impressive capabilities, and the techies praise the results, the standard user leans back and asks “Why?”

Beauty contest.

When Steve Jobs presented Spaces as one of the new features of Leopard at Apple’s WWDC 2006, he earned mixed reactions. Spaces finally integrates virtual desktops into Mac OS and allows you to comfortably switch between them. A feature Linux distributions had built-in for years and third party software offering virtual desktops for Windows and OS X has been available for quite some time.
The visual effect while switching from one virtual desktop (aka ‘Space’) to another is a simple animation: the screen gently slides into the direction of the Space you’ve selected. This is a beautiful effect, but honestly, it isn’t going to blow anyone away. Least of all if you’ve just experienced XGL in action. XGL with its impressive rotating 3D cube desktops clearly wins the beauty contest.
But are we in a beauty contest here?

More than eye candy.

There’s another aspect which makes the difference between good visual effects and great visual effects: Great visual effects are more than just eye candy. And this is where Mac OS still excels Linux, Vista and every spinning 3D cube around. Great visual effects tell a user what’s happening. And they can do it in a much better way than any status bar or dialog box can.
When switching between Spaces in Leopard, the sliding animation tells the user: Your desktop is bigger than your screen. I’m showing you only a portion of your screen. And with the strike of a key, you can move the currently visible portion to another part of the desktop.
The visual effect puts the user’s action into a bigger context. It tells a story. It intuitively explains Spaces better than any paragraph in a user manual could ever do. And this is what separates the beautiful from the well-designed. I wonder how intuitively a spinning 3D cube or wobbling windows feel to the average user? And what story do they tell?
Apple’s designers know how to use visual effects for effective communication. This starts with the shaking login box after a failed login attempt. It continues with the zooming out effect for Expose, giving you a bird’s eye view of your apps – literally. And it reaches the latest climax with another new feature of Leopard: Time Machine. I’ve never seen a better way of telling a non-techie what a backup is, and what it can do for you.

Conclusion.

If you’re a developer keen to test the limits of visual effects in operating systems, I suggest: keep going! Bring beauty to the desktop! It’s great. We need it. Linux needs it. But tell a story with your effects. Help us understand what your application does. And please stop wasting time for this mine’s-more-beautiful-than-yours-game.
Who do you like more: Someone who wins a beauty contest? Or someone who can tell a story?
For me it’s quite simple: I’d like to have…
…both.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 19:55 and is filed under Design, Usability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.