05-24-2003, 05:42 PM
To be fair, I find the Blizzard games to be better than most as far as the user interface is concerned.
But, it certainly is true that the interface could be improved.
I'm sure that a big problem is a lack of understanding of the way that people use machines. I'm not aware of any serious studies that have been done, that would have resulted in a usable analysis of the best way to develop a user interface.
Of course, there is the study of "Ergonomics", but that seems to be primarily concerned with reducing the discomfort and potential damage caused by excessive use of a device (i.e. keyboard, mouse, monitor).
Most of what we use today has been developed not through experimentation, data collection and analysis, but rather through the intuition of the designers. Unfortunately, what is intuitive for one person can be Greek to someone else. My personal example of this is Apple 'puters. I've worked on them since 1976, and have never been able to work on them intuitively. Even (especially) with the Macintosh, I need to deliberately think about what I want to do, and how I'm going to do it. There just seems to be something about the way the folks who design those machines work that throws me off.
By comparison, the old TRS-80 Model 1 was easy for me to visualize. The memory map for that machine was simple, and intuitive for me. I realized at the time that it was also very inefficient, but I found it easy to work with. Nothing uses anything link that memory map today.
I'm sure that game designers would benefit from training and experience in other fields. The field of user interface design would need to be developed first. Another example would be Hospitality (i.e. Hotel Management). As games move toward online environments, where the players are "Guests", the people who develop and operate those environments should have some training in how to deal with guests.
You don't learn that by pounding on a keyboard, eating Twinkies and drinking Jolt. :)
-rcv-
But, it certainly is true that the interface could be improved.
I'm sure that a big problem is a lack of understanding of the way that people use machines. I'm not aware of any serious studies that have been done, that would have resulted in a usable analysis of the best way to develop a user interface.
Of course, there is the study of "Ergonomics", but that seems to be primarily concerned with reducing the discomfort and potential damage caused by excessive use of a device (i.e. keyboard, mouse, monitor).
Most of what we use today has been developed not through experimentation, data collection and analysis, but rather through the intuition of the designers. Unfortunately, what is intuitive for one person can be Greek to someone else. My personal example of this is Apple 'puters. I've worked on them since 1976, and have never been able to work on them intuitively. Even (especially) with the Macintosh, I need to deliberately think about what I want to do, and how I'm going to do it. There just seems to be something about the way the folks who design those machines work that throws me off.
By comparison, the old TRS-80 Model 1 was easy for me to visualize. The memory map for that machine was simple, and intuitive for me. I realized at the time that it was also very inefficient, but I found it easy to work with. Nothing uses anything link that memory map today.
I'm sure that game designers would benefit from training and experience in other fields. The field of user interface design would need to be developed first. Another example would be Hospitality (i.e. Hotel Management). As games move toward online environments, where the players are "Guests", the people who develop and operate those environments should have some training in how to deal with guests.
You don't learn that by pounding on a keyboard, eating Twinkies and drinking Jolt. :)
-rcv-