From: daniel@csgi63.dcs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Subject: Re: If it doesn't look good on monochrome, something's wrong with it?
Organization: School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:43:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: csgi63.leeds.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BtFyq1.EI9@world.std.com>, dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
> 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).
> 
	[interesting ideas on colour and black-and-white presentation
	 deleted for brevity]
> 
> 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.
> 

I'm not at all sure about there being specific "reality-detector neurons" in
the brain, but I think the general principle is plausible. We (at the very
least I) respond well to simulated objects on the computer screen that
appear to have a correspondance with real world objects. The 2.5D objects
in Windows 3.x are "comfortable" and this is in part due to the 2.5D
look and feel they possess.

> 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.

I'm fairly sure that you are wrong here. Think about painting and jazz. Both
started off with simple techniques (no perspective in painting, very simple
melodics in jazz), progressed through more "literalistic" phases (the
discovery of perspective in painting and the complex melodies and harmonies
of pre-WWII jazz) and on into more and more abstract forms as they matured
further (be-bop and the rejection of melody in jazz, expressionism and beyond
in painting). These are just two examples, other art forms (drama, "classical"
music... notably not cinema, yet) have gone through similar progressions.
 
> 
> 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.
> 

These heuristics seem intuitively to be correct to me.

> Hope this touches off some PLEASANT controversy.
>

Ditto.

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

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors