Talk:Human interface guidelines
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The Anti-Mac User Interface edit
The article by Gentner and Nielsen explores the downsides of desktop user interface and proposes principles that may form a basis for the next generation of computer user interfaces. However, it does not enumerate specific policies — two applications built with the article as their guide will not look and act as if they belonged to the same environment. That's because there is no environment, just some ideas that might get expanded into an environment by someone.
True, it's not always certain what constitutes a guideline and what is a principle, but I think this particular document is certainly not a HIG. Also, please note that Wikipedia has article covering the Anti-Mac user interface, which is a better link target if the concept of Anti-Mac user interface needs to be referred to. Aapo Laitinen 18:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not a HIG. Still relevant, though. — Omegatron 20:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Change link to "Apple Human Interface Guidelines" in the main article? edit
The link http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/index.html, "Apple Human Interface Guidelines", does not lead directly to that book/document.
A better link, I believe, is:
And/or to the PDF version:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/OSXHIGuidelines.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortense (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove GNU/Linux edit
The rational for this is that GNU/Linux desktops are used outside of GNU/Linux (Solaris and *BSD for example). Besides not GNOME nor KDE HIG is dependent on anything GNU nor Linux related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.223 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Article Name edit
This article should be renamed to User interface guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.70.21 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Design language edit
From what I read in both articles, they are the same things: Rules governing the look and feel of user interfaces. Even examples are the same: Both provide Material Design and Metro (design language) as examples. Only "Human interface guidelines" uses an external link farm. Fleet Command (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The scope of the articles are different. Design language seems mainly concerned about visuals while HIG are about the user experience and cover much more than looks. The former is also related to the design/ad industry while the latter is related to the HCI/UX fields.. Opencooper (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Opencooper: What you explained right now are two scopes with 90% overlap. Even those eccentric user interfaces designed by Kai Krause didn't purely concern themselves with looks. Fleet Command (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @FleetCommand: I agree that there is some overlap but that alone isn't reason for merging, the two are still distinct. I've read both Apple's and Android's HIG and they really don't stop at design. They give advice on things like behavior and language. It's very specifically geared towards applications running on a platform. From what I can glean from the design language article, its about visual branding, making a companies products have a consistent look and feel; it's much more concerned about things at the product level. The only reason the examples are the same is because the articles haven't demarcated themselves clearly, though I'd say design language is more of a vaguely-related superset of HIG if anything, and it mostly links to visual guides like Metro (design language) and Snow White design language. HIG are notable by themselves and deserve their own article. Opencooper (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are just convincing me that merger is more appropriate. Maybe I should've merged without asking. Perhaps next time. Fleet Command (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to invite participants from relevant WikiProjects to discuss, I am just one editor after all, and the best consensus is that formed from several views Opencooper (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are just convincing me that merger is more appropriate. Maybe I should've merged without asking. Perhaps next time. Fleet Command (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- @FleetCommand: I agree that there is some overlap but that alone isn't reason for merging, the two are still distinct. I've read both Apple's and Android's HIG and they really don't stop at design. They give advice on things like behavior and language. It's very specifically geared towards applications running on a platform. From what I can glean from the design language article, its about visual branding, making a companies products have a consistent look and feel; it's much more concerned about things at the product level. The only reason the examples are the same is because the articles haven't demarcated themselves clearly, though I'd say design language is more of a vaguely-related superset of HIG if anything, and it mostly links to visual guides like Metro (design language) and Snow White design language. HIG are notable by themselves and deserve their own article. Opencooper (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Opencooper: What you explained right now are two scopes with 90% overlap. Even those eccentric user interfaces designed by Kai Krause didn't purely concern themselves with looks. Fleet Command (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)