Re: Creativity vs Standards
Snake: Interesting discussion piece.
I think it may have highlighted the nub of the controversy. Do we want Creativity or do we want Standards？
Not mutually exclusive, but this decision can interfere with usability.
The design concepts established year's ago, where e.g., menus were at the top, with a shortcut key indicated for those preferring keyboard access, gave a boost to standardisation.
Why are standards important? Ask Shadow Systems and others who require set standards to *navigate* an application, regardless of that application. Applications should be designed with standards in mind, such that anyone can install an application, run it, make use of it, and close it without any need to seek advice on how to do so.
Everything should be obvious. The Operating System: the Platform, first and foremost, is a tool.
It enables the application designers to focus their efforts on supporting the nitty gritty of the application, which is what the user is paying for. There should be no need to worry about the outside environment, where other applications hang out. The bain of my life is borderless windows, panels, menus; menu bars that have no contrast when scrolling down the option list. There is often now no means to differentiate between modal and modeless forms, and whatever happened to the X in the top right hand corner of a panel? The only way to resolve some situations is to dial in to a users's pc (not always easy if they haven't a suitable vehicle for that pre-installed), or to go on-site.
Originally MS arguably had a vested interest in everyone adopting these Standards that were set out. But now it wants to get rid of the "pilot fish" because in some cases those pilot fish have grown too big. So it wishes to act as disruptor. It thinks it can rid itself of standards, but what will, and is happening is that other standards are evolving through the walled garden of environments: browsers being the biggest category of such. Environments where developers can set their own standards. Unfortunately this makes life difficult for those that want a universal platform to work with. Typical example is the stock market where - unless you've got thousands to spend - there are lots of separate islands of information that are difficult to knit together without manual rekeying.
To emphasise: We are returning to the bad old days where *islands of data* proliferate. Yes there are macros where a script can be trained to pull data from one application and surface it in another, but that only works so long as neither the source nor the destination (or the gubbins in the middle) does not change, causing the mechanism to break.
Creativity is good. Not averse to that at all, but it has to stay within the bounds of Standards previously laid down. One of my clients, a world renowned luxury goods manufacturer/retailer, opened up a store in central London many years ago. Though the architect's brief was to pervade luxuriousness throughout the design of the building, there was no getting away from having to provide e.g., standard Fire Exit signs. The analogy here is that *navigation* through a fire to the Fire Exit has to be such that there are no nasty surprises when deity forbid, such an eventuality materialises. That's what these Standards are for.
Planning permission was rejected for shutters essential for security, so an alternative compromise between security and appearance had to be struck - make no mistake that compliance trumped the aesthetics.
So the bottom line might be: Careful What You Wish For. Just think that one day you may be in a venue where the Architect has decided to allow the aesthetics to override safety considerations. Maybe a sports or concert venue. It will never happen? Hmm, history has the answer to that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
