ArticleIP_2233.txt

   
   
      
         
            UI Like, UI Don't Like

            
               UI Like,
UI Don't Like
            

            One of the bits of software
jargon the journalists at 
                  Slate
                have learned at the feet of our
cybercolleagues is "user interface," or "UI" for short. The UI is the face the
software presents to the world--the set of devices (buttons to click, blanks to
fill in, and so on) by which users are able to tell the software what to do.
(As a division of Microsoft, 
                  Slate
                takes no position on what
users should do when they want to tell the software where to go.)

            Here at

                  Slate
                we've been having a, er, vigorous discussion about one
particular UI issue. It concerns our e-mail-type features. Currently we do
these two different ways. "Dispatches & Dialogues," such as "Movies Today,"
uses an elaborate and (some of us think) elegant UI: Each discussion has an
introductory page, each entry is on its own page, and (if you accept cookies)
your computer remembers which item you last read and takes you to the next item
when you return the next time. "The Breakfast Table" and "Chatterbox" employ a
simpler and (some of us think) more elegant or possibly (others of us think)
cruder UI: New items are just piled on top of older ones until, after a day or
a week, a new page is started.

            Atotally objective summary of the internal debate is
roughly as follows:

            Advocates of the simpler
approach argue that it more closely captures the fizz of e-mail, is easier and
quicker for the readers, and encourages the writers to really think of the
process as a conversation rather than as a series of isolated pronunciamentos.
(This contingent is itself divided on the issue of newest-to-oldest vs.
oldest-to-newest, but that's a whole other debate.)

            Advocates of the complicated
approach emphasize that some people enjoy constantly clicking and waiting
because they have nothing better to do; that long and boring doesn't
necessarily mean bad; that cool technology is its own justification even if
it's useless; and that, anyway, who cares what the customers want.

            The
editor, of course, is scrupulously neutral in this controversy.

            Care to take sides? Your vote
below will be appreciated--if not necessarily followed. And you can check on
the tally any time by returning to this page. You can also e-mail comments on
this or any other issue to [email protected]. Thanks.

            

               --Michael Kinsley