Karel, thank you for writing this post! I'm finding it more and more frustrating to find companies, designers and developers 'abstracting' (or even ignoring) the underlying platform they are building for. Adobe AIR, Flash, Flex, Java Swing, JavaFX, Silverlight, and even the browsers (in some respects) all attempt to sweep away (in varying degrees) the differences between the underlying platforms, while often trying to create an entirely new one on top.

This approach ignores one very key fact. Users tend to be most familiar with the underlying platform they use, and the key software they are likely to interact with on that platform everyday.

Whether it's Windows, Mac, Linux, Symbian, iPhone, Office or something else all together. They understand the way the platform uses windows, alerts and dialogues. They see common ui controls and immediately understand how to use them. When we abstract (or ignore) these conventions we typically confuse users - even when we insist we're doing it to create a better user experience.

If every product has a unique ui that behaves markedly different from every other ui, users would have no reasonable expectation of simply being able to sit down and begin using a new product. This learning curve then becomes a real cost to users (and organizations) when making purchasing (and even evaluation) decisions. Skitch (Mac app) is lovely, but it is so different I often cringe when I have to use it. Adobe AIR apps are usually a ux disaster as every developer/designer insist on being clever by half.

Adobe products (CS Suite) is probably one of the worst offenders for this and causes users to not only become proficient in the underlying OS behaviors, but also in the Adobe platform itself. Windows, controls, dialogues, etc are all different by default on both Mac and Windows machines.

The longer I work as a designer the more I'm starting to believe that you must design for the platform (incl the web as a platform). Take into consideration all of the nuances that already exist - the things that users are already familiar with. When you choose to innovate a design do it where it will make a real difference to users, and be sure you exceed what's already possible with the underlying platform. If you can't do it markedly better, you should probably use what's already there.

Hi Karel , I just downloaded IE 8. I am a complete amatuer and use my pc to keep in touch with clients and friends.I do some browsing for great travel rates , assorted products and sometimes,in fact,often as a handy desktop encyclopedia.
My pc came with Explorer and windows so live search is what I have become familiar with.
I see no personal value added in IE8. Basically ,with my limited knowledge things remain the same other than a series of unwanted, annoying toolbars at the top which I will have no use for.They seem redundant,since any of that information I can find in a live search . They are presumptuous as well in so far as assuming what type of newsfeed will apply to me regarding for example the choices:foxsports,msnbc,money etc.
I really like the previous commenters statement about not changing if you can't do markedly better. "If it ain't broke don't fix it ",if you will. It almost seems there is some type of pressure to update these UIs on a regular basis ,needed or not.
I wish developers would conduct many more polls of users,asking for feedback and input before shoving a lateral move at us.Libby keenan

I'll admit that the ability to resize a window from any corner is definitely a plus for the Windows side. Here and there, Windows has its pluses and I'm never afraid to admit them.

However, I think that overall OS X's Aqua, as well as GNOME (haven't spent much time with KDE) are far greater graphical shells than Windows's. OS X's greatest benefits are having universal consensus on the basic window-affecting shortcut bindings (e.g., Apple+H to hide, Apple+M to minimize, Apple+Q to quit) and the ability to configure, in a centralized place (System Preferences), other app- or system-wide shortcuts. That's the kind of really simple thing that makes it terribly more usable than Windows for me. It's been some time since I've used GNOME (although I plan to use it soon again, so I'll have to get back to you on this), but I remember its desktop being terribly configurable! Its configuration options, and its ability to interpolate widgets into the desktop interface, was unmatched by anything else I'd seen (comparing it to OS X or Windows XP...or Vista by extension now that I've also used that) when I first started using GNOME regularly, about a year and a half ago.

I haven't yet used Windows 7, but Vista to me was a disappointment on the whole. Merely UI-wise, Vista was certainly an improvement from XP. However, I still feel it's behind Aqua and GNOME. My greatest complaint with Windows nowadays is with its system architecture, but I doubt Version 7 will be up to par with its graphical shell; I could be wrong.

I think the Air apps will be inconsistent with pretty much everything but ... Air apps. I'd guess that iTunes would prefer to muck up your Win experience because that's a driver to change to Mac OSX.

With regard to your thoughts about designing for a platform, I'm not sure I agree. Since there is nothing about a web browser that defines the experience inside it, you have the ability to design for the end-user, and that's a far more important target to work for, regardless of platform.

In my mind, the platform is the conduit that brings the technology to the user. Sure, it will frame what you can and can't do in some cases, but I don't think you ever design to it.

Now that most of the applications I use are web-oriented, what OS I happen to be using matters much less than in the past. Only those people who do a lot of local processing care much about the OS's UI conventions. As even tasks like image editing increasingly move to the cloud, and as more and more people recognize the benefits of doing everything online, locally-oriented people will become a small minority.

It is no accident that few people want a "better" version of Windows. Most of us just want a simple and reliable OS that gets us online. I wish Microsoft would have just kept XP going more or less forever, with improvements to reliability etc. via updates and service packs. But of course then they would make less money, so they keep inventing reasons for the public to "upgrade" to something that is actually worse because it unnecessarily changes the UI.

I agree with you that the Windows model of resizing windows is much superior to the Mac one. While I've made a complete conversion to Macs at home and at work, that is one interface element I really miss.

Interesting post. One would think that MS would take a more aggressive approach to their stylesheet in terms of the apps that are written for it - maybe include something in the SDK that would check for problems like this?
-D

David,
You made me really think on this one. I've been using Windows since 3.0 hit and XP is firmly in my comfort zone. I've played with Ubuntu (based on the GNOME kernel) and liked it a lot. My biggest problem with the UI with it was the same problem I had the first time I used a Mac - I didn't want to sit down and relearn an OS. I can open and install a file in Windows as well as tweak to my heart's content - two things that I had problems with using Ubuntu. I shied away from Vista due to the bad press - something my wife wasn't burdened with (she loves it). Which brings me to one question - what should an OS or a UI expect from the user? How much retraining should one expect from the user when moving (sometimes by necessity) to a new Interface? I've played with Windows 7 some and like what I see so far.
-D

Good post. As with most things, I feel like the weakness you point out is also tied in with Windows' strength. Microsoft has never been as strict with UI guidelines as has Apple, though Microsoft does publish and encourage those guidelines. One negative result of this is that there is inconsistency between applications. But I feel like a corresponding positive result has been some interesting innovation in UI design from application manufacturers - in some cases design that eventually became part of the OS.

On a side note, one of the UI elements I enjoy in Windows over OSX is simply that I can maximize windows. Seems such a small thing, but when I open an application I want to be in that application. I don't want other things peeking around the edges. :-)

Karel;

I think that the bigger issue is the UI model for browser-based applications. There is an increasingly inconsistent design there because the UI model is even less clear (since the app designer could be from any number of OS’s or companies). I have seen applications designed to look like web sites (with all of the clutter that goes with it).

That's where the larger disaster looms.

Rick.