From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: If it doesn't look good on monochrome, something's wrong with it?
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:54:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BtFyq1.EI9
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

I can't quite agree with jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)'s
closing remark. Yes, color should be subtle and subdued and should be
used to help the user and not to all attention to itself.

However, if you compare the appearance of color versus black-and-white
movies when viewed on a black-and-white television -- or, better yet, 
a color TV with the color control all the way down -- you'll see that
there are definite differences in design strategies. Material that is
intended to by viewed in color does NOT look "good" on monochrome.  It
usually does look "OK".  There's a difference.  (I think so, anyway).

(By the way, the reason why I suggest using a color TV with the color
control turned down is that black-and-white sets now are designed strictly
for the lowest possible cost; consequently there is no such thing as a
good black-and-white set.  Color sets are better black-and-white sets than
black-and-white sets.  The most noticeable difference is that B&W sets
invariably lack the "DC restorer" while color set invariably have it;
scenes that should be dark and low-key become a washed-out grey, and
fades to black become fades to grey).

Lighting for black-and-white is much more contrasty (and much stagier,
less natural). To separate objects and bring out their relations, you need
crisp, dark shadows and bright highlights.  There's also an, I-don't-know
how-to-describe-it but there's a strong tendency for black-and-white films
to include things like fog, people smoking, and, hmmm... "atmosphere."

Material that looks good in color makes less use of contrast to separate
objects, because the color helps separate them. When Technicolor was
introduced, the Technicolor company made a big deal of insisting that
film companies use their consultants to teach them a completely different
approach to lighting.

OK, has this any relevance to UI?  Yes, I think so.  I have a cockamamie
personal theory that there are "reality-detector" neurons in the brain and
that we feel comfortable when something trips them.  One of the reasons why
there's so much controversy about UI design is the difficulty of distinguishing
between UI elements that are decoration, and UI elements that have no logical
function but nevertheless are NOT decoration.  

The shaded bezels around buttons that give a "three-dimensional" appearance 
to the NeXT, Motif, and Windows 3.0 are IMHO a good case of the latter.  From
a LOGICAL point of view, all they do is waste screen real estate.  But I
believe the contribute to user comfort and user understanding by making the
screen look more solid, more real, sending a clearer message of what the
"affordances" are -- a Windows button LOOKS more like something you might
push than a Mac button.

Another point to be noted is that in the evolution of popular art forms and
their technology, the more literalistic has ALWAYS displaced the more
abstract, always to the groans of those who admire the older, more
sophisticated technologies.  It's well before my time but it is hard to
mistake the sincerity of those who complained of the loss in drama,
emotional depth, and artistry when sound films displaced silent.  Ditto,
but within living memory for some of us, the displacement of black-and-white
by color.  

Siskel and Ebert were talking about this last week.  They opined that
black-and-white represents the general, color the particular.  So they
felt that black-and-white films had a kind of mythic, greater-than-life
character to them while color films have a sort of particularized, 
prosaic feeling.  

So, what does it all mean for UI design?  My guess is that it should
evolve toward a comfortable and naturalistic appearance.  IF the color
calls attention to itself (bah gum ah paid plenty for SVGA and ah 
want to SEE 256 different colors on my screen) that's wrong. But if
color can be used to make the artificiality of the screen presentation LESS
obvious, I'd predict that would be right.

Anyway, I'd guess that the following hedged statements are true:
a) the best color designs will not look as good in monochrome as the
   the best monochrome designs.
b) the best color designs, when viewed in color, will be better and
   more effective, than the best monochrome designs.
c) designing for monochrome is a very sensible adaptation to current
   market realities, but it should be recognized as such.
   "If it doesn't look good in monochrome, something's wrong with it"
   is true. What's wrong with it is that you're ignoring the needs of
   X% of your users, where X is probably around 35% now but declining.
   It is not a basic UI principle, except in the sense that
   knowing your users and their needs is a basic  UI principle.

Hope this touches off some PLEASANT controversy.


-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com