[the title is a reference to this ]
It's amusing when people start commenting on things like User eXperience.
Measuring usability is an exact science. It has very specific rules, and is very predictable when given a specific context, a test case and a measuring framework.
The main issue that arises, is that people with advanced aesthetic concerns (the designer guilds mainly) or powerusers that breathe configuration and code as naturally as air, fail to understand the mind of the common user. Truth be said, no one has to understand it, you just have to follow some guidelines.
Let's take a look at a very specific example: Window borders across operating systems and some basic clones.
| Vista |
Leopard |
 |
 |
| Vista Clone |
OSX Clone |
 |
 |
What's important to note here are the window borders. A simple rule of ergonomical design is that one must not add more or less contrast than required.
In simple points:
- You should add fences between content, only when the content needs to be taken into a different context.
- Switching between contexts is tiresome for the eyes. I.e. taking your eyes between two different apps, a word processor and the desktop is tiresome.
- Failing to switch contexts when this should have occurred leads to retries, therefore it is even more tiresome. I.e. looking for an icon in the desktop while in a mindless operation and while being in the word processor, should not lead to the eye searching for the icon while not having left the processor.
- Ergo there should be enough contrast so that in the given use case (day at work or 4 hours at home) the eye and the cognitive structure behind it is least stressed.
Clearly ergonomics of perception -Cognetics to be exact- can only be measured by testing. Using eye-tracking cameras we can determine how many pixels the eye traverses in a test case, and also the mouse or fingers over the keyboard. That's whats ergonomics is about, easing the unavoidable stress to the point where it is no more than the amount caused by the task at hand.
In Windows in order to adjust the transition, the borders are thick, and transparent. Transparency is adjustable so that users can calibrate just how much contrast they are comfortable with. Also as a fail safe, a single pixel of cyan highlight is added to add a fence when users opt to go fully transparent, like I do.
OSX takes a simpler non configurable approach by adding grey slates on the bottom and top borders. The gray engulfs black text, which is extra smooth and pleasant. This is adapted to the work style of OSX users which is of course horizontal, also let's face it, OSX users are more accustomed to using many and less monolithic applications. Under that consideration, adding a vertical barrier would be a mistake. That said the glowing scrollbars are one such mistake.
It is really futile to compare OSX and Windows because the design considerations are very much different. Also we should point out that it's impossible to accommodate everyone. For each design decision, there are plenty of scenarios that would disprove it.
However you can easily trash the clones. The people copying the themes are obviously clueless. Notice the contrast explosion in the Vista clone. Omg those buttons are white, it's like the designer wanted to denote emergency shutdown or sth. Also notice the numerous horizontal fences in the Leopard clone. That's just sad.
Visual fences and blending a context with the environment is not a problem only within a screen, but also in the context of an office. Notice the difference between the two monitors bellow.
It's just the color. However only the left one can get a TCO 03 ergonomics certification. You see grey allows for it to blend more smoothly with the office space around it. Black and white panels simply can't get such a certification. If you get to find one, it's a fraud. Simple as that. Unfortunately TCO certifications are granted by filing an application and taking responsibility of your actions, therefore a few minor vendors get around that.