Ron Vutpakdi wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Michael Mahemoff (Mailing
> Lists)" <michaellists@m...> wrote:
>>This is an interesting point about tools - I have found there are
>>several steps a platform's facilitator can take to promote UI
>>flourish across the community. I did some research on style guides a
>>while back, and a few success factors were:
>> * The concepts. Most importantly, the concepts have to be logical and
>>fit together cohesively. No good having one guideline suggest "3D
>>and another suggest "raise/lower buttons".
> As a general rule, yes, the concepts and guidelines need to be
> consistent and fit together logically as much as possible. But, it's
> really hard to come up with general, practical guidelines which will
> work together logically in every situation because a considerable
> portion of good design (in any discipline/domain) comes down to
> analyzing the context, goals, and situation and knowing when to follow
> the guidelines (which is what should happen most of the time) and when
> to violate the guidelines. In other words, "it depends" gets used
> quite a bit.
Right, because conventional windows platforms let you work in any
discipline/domain you care to name.
Where it gets more interesting is in specialised devices. For instance,
PDAs in the mid-1990s. The hardware was there, but there were many
different views on how to write a PDA application. When PalmOS and WinCE
came along (and later, Pocket PC), they each took very different
directions. Both were internally consistent and both imposed strong
constraints on developers. So many issues that previously "depended" had
already been decided upon, encapsulated in the principles of the
BTW It's interesting to note that these are examples of platforms where
tooling and flagship applications (e.g. Palm's MemoPad, Address, etc.)
played a superior role to style guide documentation.