Customizations

Does allowing users to customize their interfaces waste too much time? I know some customization is good, like allowing users to add bookmarks or move toolbars around in an app. However, what about changing skins and resizing every little thing?

Customization of an interface is very important for productivity in some applications. In graphics and drawing programs, you need the tools you use the most to be displayed right where you are working. You can't go through three menus to click on something if you are using it every few seconds. Graphics programs have so many options that they can't all be displayed, but usually you can add functions to toolbars so they are easily accessible. Things like this help efficiency and can save a lot of time.

However, while I was looking at the surface and saw the scalable forms that expand if you drag your fingers away from each other in that form. I can see a lot of developers enabling this option just so the app seems cool, even if this feature is totally unnecessary. It also got me thinking about skins and other customizations in programs. This can waste so much time, if a user keeps resizing all of the applications and changing skins every time they open it up.

So I think developers really need to think of the application when adding features. If they are developing a game, sure, why not add cool things. But if it is a utility, does it really need these bells and whistles that don't serve a purpose or help productivity?

Smarts or Interface

So this week I am debating whether effort is better spent on improving the smarts/AI or improving the interface. Both can be very important, Apple's iTunes is a good example of a program that has both. It allows you to do a lot of things with your songs, and with it's genius playlists, it can recommend music that you might like. It also has a pretty good user interface, allowing you categorize music and sort it based on many different factors. Although smarts help, I think the user interface is more important

Better smarts in a program like iTunes or Netflix can help you find songs that you might like. In others like Google, they can help answer your questions or suggest something else you might need("Did you mean?"). However, iTunes not only helps you find music you might like, they also help you find music you might buy. And Apple hopes that you will buy from them. Therefore, better smarts can lead to more songs you find that you like, and more songs you buy from them, resulting in bigger profits. Usually smarts help the user and the developer.

A user interface is something every program/website has. Something for the user to interact with. Whether it's buttons, links, or something else, it needs to be intuitive and easy to use. If people can't find what they want, they won't come back to your site or they won't use your program. The smarts should come later. If Google had a great search method, but nobody could find the search box on their website, they wouldn't use it. And if people cannot easily find the features and settings they want in a program, many give up easily.

Therefore, I think time and effort is better spent on a user interface. The first time people use a program or website, it is usually for a certain purpose. If it doesn't work for that person, they most likely won't use it again. But after a good interface is implemented, smarts can help customers return by helping them find other things or just improving an existing process.

Simpler is better?

I am a big fan of simplicity in an interface. Of course I like cool widgets on a site, but only if they serve a purpose, not to just take up space. I like to be able to find what I'm looking for, and not have to load a ton of applets. One good example of simplicity is the widely read drudgereport.com It is a news site with mostly just text links, and a small amount of pictures. The links are in 3 neat rows, which is easy to read. To read an article, you just click on a link and it takes you to the article. CNN.com on the other hand, has all kinds of tables, sections, and video applets all over the main page. If you click on a link, you might go to a text article, you might end up watching a video. There isn't really an option between them for users with slow internet. The different news sections are listed at the top, middle and bottom. Some people might like every option imaginable, but to me, CNN.com is cluttered. And even though it might have some good graphics and animations, I would prefer the basic layout of drudgereport.com