By creative software, I mean software that is the tool for creation. By Functional software, I mean software that is the tool one uses to get things done.
Creative software is text input, drawing programs, modeling programs, image editing software, music software, etc. Something where you save a creative work out of it.
Functional software is for completing tasks. Email, calendar, clients (such as for FTP, SSH, etc), music players, file browsers, etc.
With both pieces of software, a user goes in with a goal. With creative software, that goal is not predetermined or predictable. The tool must step out of the way. A paintbrush does not give recommendations or auto-complete brushstrokes. It is not the creative software that makes the thing, is is the creative software that lets users make the thing they want to make. Users also have a goal for functional software, and this sort of software should be stepping in and helping out wherever possible - making it as easy and fast as possible to complete the task.
IMHO, the best software in either camp follows UNIX's philosophy of "One Thing Well", but particularly functional software. The more things a piece of software tries to do, the worse it is at doing everything. By just doing One Thing Well, design is more streamlined an efficient. Navigation trees are smaller - there are less steps to figure out what the user actually wants to do. Software - good design - should know and work with the goal of the user. With one-thing-well functional software, we get really good products.
But what about creative software, - there is no way to know what the user want's to do outside of really broad categories like 'paint' or 'write'. Programs like Photoshop have adaptable workspaces (read: changing/customizable interfaces that bring out the features of the programs depending on what the user wants to do, be it image editing, digital painting, proofing, or whatever. This allows a program as feature-packed as Photoshop to remain as useful as possible. Show the user what they need, hide what they don't, and get out of the damn way. Without the changing interface, the program would look a lot like pre-ribbon-strip Word. Menu after Submenu of categorized features that a user must hunt through, because the program does not know what it is the user want's to do, and thusly has to have everything be an option. It's better to have fewer yet more important [to the user's goal] options at quick access than to have every option 8 steps away. Weight the design towards what the users use - don't be equitable to the software's functions.
If software is just doing One Thing Well, then there is no need for this context-based interface modifying. Merely by launching the program, it knows what the user want's to do, and thusly the design can focus on making a better experience for the user. This is the best method I know for software to determine the goal of the user.
No comments:
Post a Comment