

The different levels of software beauty - nimeshneema
http://www.hollance.com/2010/10/the-different-levels-of-software-beauty/

======
ShawnJG
I have to say I agree with most of what he said. These are really basic tenets
of design. The only thing I take exception to is number 6...the source code
beautification. I don't necessarily agree with his logic here. "Ugly source"
is not necessarily buggy. I know you can take "ugly source" a number of
different ways, but let's assume that you are good at writing software and
check for bugs. Some projects have over 1 million lines of code it may not
always be pretty, but it can work bug free. The only exception, I believe is
open source. If you're creating something explicitly to be used in the wild,
you should try to make that as clean as possible.

On another note, in between what is a Microsoft user experience and an Apple
user experience, there should be an open platform that gives me a streamlined,
intuitive user interface as good as Apples. I'm by no means an Apple fan boy.
Far from it actually. But I cannot deny the attention Apple gives to user
experience. But in actuality they still use a one-size-fits-all approach. With
the processing power we now have in our computers, we should be working on
machines that conform to us the more we use them. We apply behavioral analysis
to almost everything digital and online, let's translate that over to user
interface. New operating systems be it from Apple, Microsoft or Google, should
all start out with the widest possible options and conform to our behavior the
more we use it. Personal computing should go way beyond the aesthetic of my
desktop and start menu. I know you can make keyboard shortcuts, macros and
favorites. But I'm talking about a deeply customizable interface as unique as
me and my habits. My computer should be learning me instead of me learning it.

