> The "professional" market doesn't care about visual cohesion.
That isn't true at all. I spend all day in a handful of applications and good aesthetics make my day much more enjoyable.
That isn't true at all. I spend all day in a handful of applications and good aesthetics make my day much more enjoyable.
I don't think that's what the person was saying that I responded to or he wouldn't have made the condescending remark about people using a pro machine to use Outlook and Facebook.
In comparison, Mac apps will look and feel different from Linux or Windows apps, and QT and GTK+ apps will look and feel different from one another or the other two.
Switching between apps, even with heavily customized UI/UX, is consistent on a given platform, and that's what's important. Taking that away will just frustrate users and complicate things overmuch.
People find it easier to use apps that have a familiar look and feel. That means less training, less troubleshooting, lower operating costs.
Anyone capable of navigating their way in Outlook can probably navigate their way in Apple's Mail or Thunderbird or Evolution. Anyone familiar with LibreOffice can do the basic stuff in Numbers in minutes.
Now, if you want a Notepad user to become proficient in Vi, that's a whole different story. Gedit, OTOH, is pretty easy.
Mental context switching is just like high CPU system time, with the same results. I/O is slower, user time processing is slower and much less gets done.
Setting aside the purely utilitarian aspect of being required to use a piece of software to do a task or as part of a job, consistency increases efficiency by reducing the amount of time spent understanding the deviations from expectation in the user interface.
There's been a great deal written about how attractive things work better. It isn't crap and it does matter.
Now I need to find language to complement someone without it sounding like OO programming style.
HN, may I please have a simple +1 or upvote button? Needs to be usable on my smallish screen too.
Would you marry an ugly woman? An ugly man?
Beautiful software, looks good, is intuitive, doesn't complain and complements the user. Hence software is different from art.
I may think a terminal window is beautiful - if I do then I will choose a terminal.
What I won't do is purposefully use user-hostile/ugly software on principle - if there is a better choice I will choose the better choice.
When all software is designed to be consumed by other computers then we can ignore those emotional reactions, for as long as software is consumed by animals it is going to be a vitally important factor.