On Oct 7, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Michael Gregoire wrote:
I also think that if needs to be explained, then there is definitely a design flaw.
I'm not sure where this bit of "wisdom" originated, but it's simply not true. I'm not sure how many of TextMate's user base have used more complex, task-specific software (such as a $600,000 video editor) where efficiency is paramount, but I have yet to encounter a professionally useful software application that did not require explanation as to how to use it. I consider TextMate to be geared towards professionals who essentially create and edit structured text for a living. I fully expect TextMate to require explanation, if it is to be truly as efficient as say, vim or Emacs. Indeed it must, because both those apps have a very strong conceptual framework that they work in.
Giving a preferences explanation after invoking the Preferences menu command is simply a convenient time to explain a feature (not a design flaw, at least as far as the creator's are concerned) of TextMate at a time when the user is likely to be extremely receptive to such information. (A tip-of-the-day is for, well, tips–not the application's philosophy of use.)
What most people mean by a "design flaw" is something that "once you understand the application (which hopefully didn't take much time/effort)", doesn't make sense according to that understanding. By that metric, the preferences "flaw" in TextMate is not explaining TextMate to the user, so that they expected it to be like the other's they already knew. There's no harm in explaining things, so long as the explanation makes sense. People can learn (and seem to enjoy it, if it makes their life better).
The number one job of any UI designer is to establish a "contract" of sorts with the user as to how the software works, and then to make damn sure that it actually does. That's much harder than it looks, but it's where greatness lies. TextMate's developers at least seem to be on the path...
Regards,
Eric Ocean