|
|
|
|
|
|
by meta
5105 days ago
|
|
|
That is interesting because I really like the aesthetic. Some of the apps I have used are indeed not consistent but I found the same on iPhone and android as well. Another thing I think to keep in mind as well is designing and implementing for a 'metro' UI is new for many developers and it will take time to get used to (and create) the conventions. I can't recall: when the iPhone came out was there a period of 'flailing' as devs figured out conventions that worked? |
|
|
But I think that's because "like" and "aesthetic" wasn't quite the words the gp was aiming for.
It's more like their User Interface Paradigm just doesn't work.
A cool sports car with no door handles or keyhole, that the cool kids open with right twist of the wrist or something can have a really nice aesthetic but be really annoying in the real world. Multiply that by a thousand and you've got something where the right mindset will get you love while the rest of us will hate and hate. Especially, menus in invisible places. That's a terrible designers are often tempted towards but should know better. If I ever have to use that stuff, some karma bolts be stinging the aestheticians who dreamed them up.
I have news. The average person is less, less - not more - less patient with "getting used to the conventions" than developers. The average person may wind-up using "conventions" but probably couldn't "describe conventions" more easily than they could solve differential equations.
If how you use the thing isn't screamingly obvious, how do you expect Joe Average to shell out the big bucks for something they still expect to be "mostly just a phone".