[ChrisMarshallNY]

> Modern software’s humdrum lack of identity has resulted in users craving more interesting, opinionated tools, tools that feel like us — or a better, more interesting, wackier version of us.

The above is the kind of sentence that you'll see in almost any fashion or arts magazine.

Pretty fluffy stuff. Not really the kind of thing we're used to, in the engineering community.

That said, I firmly believe that there's always a place for good graphic and interaction design, in technology.

I don't feel that it's a problem. Some companies will stick to "the classics," while some will go overboard with the "chrome"[0], so to speak.

[0] https://www.mprove.de/script/99/kai/2Software.html

[andybak]

So I read the first sentence and my immediate reaction was "Well I don't. And I'm not sure anyone has ever expressed that opinion to me" and I stopped reading.

[coldtea]

Well, here's that opinion: today's flat UIs all look the same, boring, and bland. I wish there was more quirkiness too. Perhaps not to Kai Power tool's levels, but I enjoy the functional quirkiness of many VST UIs.

Now you can continue reading. Seldom anybody learned much, when they stopped reading at the point they disagreed with.

[andybak]

I want my UI’s to be usable. I want it to be immediately obvious what I need to do. I want them to become invisible in the same way good tools do. I don’t want my hammer to be quirky, I want it to be an extension of my hand.

EDIT - Yeah. I have a certain fondness for Kai’s. But I had time to get used to them. It’s one UI in a thousand where I have time to get bedded in with it’s quirks. For all the rest - be boring.

[Randosaurus]

The flat UI's you're complaining about are an example of the form over function philosophy.

[coldtea]

The opposite could be argued as well: it's design supposed to focus on function alone (after all that was their pitch: put the content front and center, remove aesthetic touches from the "skeuomorphic" UIs, etc.) but with no redeeming aesthetic qualities (which are also important for actual human users).

So, it's not exactly form over function (besides thought into form is necessary for function - you can have a real world lever that is e.g. thin and crooked and it will still function as a lever, but a good lever also has good form -- e.g. be designed to have a good grip).

It's "design ideology and novelty for some manager's sake" over form and function.

[agumonkey]

There's a bit of truth. The era of extremely engineered everything gave birth to flat design for instance. I'm not pro skeumorphism but I remember how odd software felt good in a way. As long as it was fun (good boards, useful programs) you ended up liking the quirks.

[andybak]

I don’t disagree but I didn’t get any of that from that opening statement. It seems to be arguing for diversity in UI which I happen to think is usually a terrible idea.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> It seems to be arguing for diversity in UI which I happen to think is usually a terrible idea.

I have to agree with this sentiment. I loved KPT, but that was more for the "adventure" aspect. I actually had difficulty using a lot of functions (don't ask me to remember which ones).

It's frustrating, designing innovative UI that also follows convention. It's a joy, when it works.

I have this iOS widget that I wrote[0]. It's really, really cool. Works a charm, and is easy to implement.

But I keep on not using it in my projects. It's too "in your face." I think that UI needs to get the hell out of the way, and just let the user do what they want to do.

I have a couple of more, more conventional widgets, that I use all the time[1], [2].

KPT was "in your face," like no other UI I have ever experienced.

[0] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#RV...

[1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#RV...

[2] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-projects/#RV...

[prox]

I am going to make a claim as someone who works in both the crossroad of devwork and design that there is not one piece of software that caters truly for the artist.

Every piece of software for artists / designers is not intuitive. It’s sliders, knobs, modals and panels. Programmers making design software is Not A Good Idea.

The way forward is something like ProCreate, so just the software and the pen, and maybe more auxiliary devices (a color palet for instance) to become more analog again.

[megameter]

No advanced art process can avoid some amount of engineering, because the demand that is made is to measure and select with precision that which is to be edited.

When we use a mark-making tool like a pen, all that's happening is that we select the area being pressed to be darkened. Technique with those tools takes years to develop, and their full use comes in tandem with additional tools like rulers, prospekt, and stencils.

So when we add knobs and sliders and modes we are simply trying to describe those kinds of intents within a precise abstraction instead of a collection of simpler tools. It does go overboard in that nobody's going to adjust every knob presented.

[pjc50]

It's been a long time since the unique and slightly bizarre Kai's Power Tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools

[prox]

Yeah, and in many ways, we haven’t seen many more trials like that.

[jimmaswell]

What do you want, an AI that reads your mind and generates the exact art you want? Barring that, a perfectly intuitive tool is impossible past a certain point of complexity. If you want something in front of something else you're going to have to learn what a layer is. If you want something at just the right transparency you're going to have to adjust the transparency.

Maybe some kind of virtual art studio in VR would be helpful for people who want a more physically intuitive experience with some extras like undo and saving copies, but even then you're still going to have to learn a thing or two about the tool to use it, like any tool.

[ksec]

>The way forward is something like ProCreate

You mean [1] ? I dont disagree with your point but I dont understand how pro create is any different to any other design software on iPad.

[1] https://procreate.art

[ChrisMarshallNY]

ProCreate works very well with the Apple Pencil.

The Apple Pencil, and the iPad Pro (esp. the latest of each), is awesome. They did a really good job on that.

I don't use ProCreate, but that's mostly because I'm not really that kind of graphic designer.

I remember looking at "paintbox" tools for video effects, in the 1970s. We've come a long, long way, and real artists have some really nice tools at their disposal.

[ksec]

So it is Apple Pencil that is making the difference, Not Pro Create?

Because parent mention Apps were the problem? Or is it more like Apps designed for Apple Pencil will be the future? Not mouse and keyboard?

[prox]

It’s the intuitive way you can draw without endlessly dialing knobs, tweak panels and so on. It’s fluent, which I feel, a lot of apps lack. I love to see more UI / UX creativity.

[theaussiestew]

I’m very curious about what you mean specifically around UI/UX creativity. I do agree with you though, which is why I’ve been trying to build an app that has more “creative” and non traditional UX elements.

I also feel that an ‘Ink-Board’ should replace the trackpad as we know it. Basically an E-Ink tablet that serves as a stylus, pointer and control input. So that we’re not limited to discrete inputs (as opposed to analogue inputs).

[Akronymus]

> That said, I firmly believe that there's always a place for good graphic and interaction design, in technology.

Form should come after function. But often times form actually contributes to function. (In the sense of making the "right" thing intuitive to do)

Function is IMO always paramount.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I've found the process to be iterative. Chicken->egg-chicken->egg... etc.