Oh my god, YES!
I’ve made this exact comparison before (the uncanny valley) in explaining why I hate Java applications. Swing just can’t do Windows right.
Interesting article! However, I think the reason why people don’t want web apps to mimic desktop apps is because
A. desktop apps are archaic compared to web apps, so no one wants a retro web experience
B. desktop apps like outlook are WORSE than web apps like gmail. desktop apps are generally cluttered and too busy, so trying to make it look like a desktop is sort of like saying you’re trying to make something overly complicated and busy for the web.
those are my thoughts at least
Semantic HTML, I think the webstandards people are doing the right things with html and css, by actually following the rules of html, and applying a p tag to behave like a paragraph and so forth. And a h1 tag is a heading, etc. Overall it results in faster loading pages, less bloated markup and nice, clean UI:s. I think the rules of UI design should follow the rules of HTML and then CSS. Keep 'em separated! HTML - Structure, CSS - Presentation, Javascript - Behaviour.
Pages done by webbstandards usually has kind of boxy look and a minimalistic design which I find characteristic of todays web, maybe it will become tomorrows norm and what we except of websites, now and tomorrow?
That’s really interesting, and pertinent, because I was looking at evaluating qooxdoo (http://qooxdoo.org/demo) on a site I’m developing.
And, whilst I was impressed by what it does I was also a little put off by it but didn’t really think about why.
Nicely done.
That was a great post. I agree wholeheartedly, web apps should not be modeled after desktop apps. It just feels wrong to everyone. People who are used to the desktop version will find it slow and clunky, and people who are used to web apps will find it illogical, inefficient, and unimaginative.
Example: A lot of the web-based outlook rip-offs (including the web interface for Microsoft Exchange Server), open a pop-up window when you compose a new message. Why? Because that’s the way Outlook does it on the desktop. As an Outlook user, I find this annoying because the simple HTML compose pop-up has a fraction of the features of the one in the real app, and it’s slower and harder to use. As a webapp user, I find this annoying because pop-up windows are annoying, and now I may need to flip between windows to see all the information I need to compose the message (my address book, the original message, etc). On the other hand, web apps like Gmail which were designed without these conventions in mind feel much more natural and responsive.
I almost posted an incredibly embarrassing comment on the blog you linked to about terrible web pages. for some reason i thought, they couldnt have possibly fixed everything in the few days since jeff posted this. luckily when i went up to cite the date, i realized OH MY GOD IM A GOD DAMN IDIOT. har har. also, DONT YOU KNOW THAT THE WAY OF MICROSOFT AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO MAKE IT BIG EVAR IS TO COPY EVERYONE ELSE THATS DOING GOOD! har. look at ford and gm. ford does it right, gm makes shitty copies. someone bought subaru, and made them produce shitty gm copies with all wheel drive. the us gets nukes, everyone else wants nukes. DONT YOU UNDERSTAND PEOPLE GET PISSED AND COPY STUFF WHEN THEY FIND OUT THEY DIDNT DO IT FIRST! hello microsoft.
also i dont understand why someone didnt copy subaru, instead of subaru copying someone. rediculousness.
The Uncanny Valley effect happens because when you’re close enough to the real thing but not there yet, it triggers the get away from sick people.
It’s a self-preservation mechanism. I’m not sure that it applies directly to UI design. Although I think I agree with you in general terms.
To quote Ronnie, well there you go again.
The history which is missing.
In the beginning, PC applications were single user, 1-2-3, dBaseII. Then these became, sort of, multi-user with NetWare and such. In the beginning, 1982, they didn’t try to replicate existing computer applications, since these were (by and large) 3270/mainframe applications. There was no reason to replicate, since the first two iterations of PC applications were head and shoulders (if you knew what you were doing) above the 3270 applications in terms of UI. Refresher: the 3270 application is a disconnected, block mode, local edit application; the PC application is connected, character mode, server edit application.
Next came the *nix/database/RS-232 terminal application. This is a connected, character mode, server edit application. It was (and still is) far superior for business type of applications.
Comes the 'net and what does the browser offer? 3270 with pixels: disconnected, block mode, local edit applications. The user interface is primitive compared to what came before. The problem is that the young-uns who started (I’m talking to you Jeff) here had no historical memory to guide them. They really thought that the browser interface actually was an improvement on what came before. Then along comes Ajax, and now these same young-uns think they’ve invented something new. Not.
The reason that developers are willing to break the browser paradigm is that it’s a sh**ty paradigm. Plain fact. They know, intuitively, that a connected, character mode, server edit application better serves the user. That it took a decade and a half for them to figure it out speaks volumes about their intellectual power.
Your point has merit, but as others have pointed out, revulsion at recognizable-but-wrong human forms and faces is different than it is for application UI. The former is ingrained while the latter is learned.
So while violating expectations can be a huge problem, they vary from user to user, even on the same OS or UI.
And – they do change over time!!! Personally, I’m starting to find traditional web apps seem wrong because they aren’t AJAX-enabled.
The woman in the picture may not be entirely human looking, but I still would.
Considering the Emily Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6ofmt=18) - am I the only one here who does not get that uncanny valley feeling when watchen the video? Really, I find some of the newer robots really weird, so it’s not that I am somehow unable to feel it, but this video does not instill it. It looks perfectly fine to me…
This time I don’t agree with Herb, but here’s what he says:
@Macie: Modern desktop Java apps made by anyone with even a tiniest bit of taste can be hardly distinguished from native ones
Care to give me an exampleor two? - I’m happy to be converted…
Stackoverflow UI: +1
Colorful, no menus and 3D-shadowed Windows widgets. Nice.
Links, hovers, spans and divs.
Loads fast, stays out of the way.
Looking the pic, I am tempted to say that stackoveflow UI is very texty 
(but please make the inset/outset borders flat…)
Also see Centraldesktop for another example.
Basecamp and the 37signals apps (not all, but some are really good looking…)
I always got the impression that BuggyFunBunny was some old, pissed off computer programmer that resents new technology because it is too easy and misses the days of punch cards and vacuum tubes…
…Fortunately, his post pretty much confirmed it…
Jeff, can’t agree more especially on the webmail part.
I think this explains my intense hatred for voice-aware telephone systems (For Accounts Receivable, say ‘Accounts Receivable’. For Accounts Payable, say ‘Accounts Payable.’) These things also have jokey-friendly talkin’ to the machine mannerisms (Tell me which department you need.)
Ugh. You are not a sentient being, you do not deserve a first-person pronoun, and we are not talking. You are a machine and I want to press a BUTTON dammit. You do not DESERVE human speech. As soon as I hear one of these things I start mindlessly mashing keys. NOISY MACHINE MAKE HULK SMAAAAASH.