Skinz - Love 'em or hate 'em?

naw · Post by **naw** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:23 pm

Hi, I'm just curious.
For a while Skinned apps were cool but now - I'm bored with them. I find their interfaces esoteric, performance usually poor. The whole idea of a GUI OS like Windows / MAC is to provide a standard look'n'feel for apps to make it just a little easier to learn to use them.

In the *old-days* (pre-Windows / MAC / X-Windows) every App worked in a different way and it was hard work learning each of them. It seems that Skins (though usually pretty) take us back to those days.

DigiCams / MP3 Players / Camcorders seem to be the worst culprits. Their bundled SW usually includes a bunch of heavily skinned low-function apps that try so desperately to be user-friendly, they bear no resemblance to any other App.

I wish developers would provide a standard OS *skin* as well as a creative / bizarre skin.

So - I'm curious. Am I the only one who is sick of skins? Whats the worst skin (ugly) you've seen? What about Apps where the Skinned User Interface actually compromises the usability of the App?

On a more positive note - what about skinned Apps that are usable only because of their creatively innovative design?

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:34 pm

Hehe when every App uses it's own system It reminds me of Linux and in Linux I see how problematic this approach is and I hate it. However there are some (very few) applications were the skinning is good. For example when a Mediaplayer looks like a real world cd Player everyone knows what whcih button does, iTunes doesn't look like a real world device though but it's pritty good and of course it only is skinned on Windows because it looks realy Maclike

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:41 pm

I hate skins!!! I never install drivers that come with any hardware (soundcards, graphics cards, modems, etc...) i always get drivers off the net 'cos you can bet ur ass the bundle software installs some bent app with a skin! Even my Razer diamondback mouse came with a skinned control panel, i mean WHY? Its slow and looks out of place on my system.

GRRRRR

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:42 pm

More crap on my system:

WHY IS THIS SKINNED??? ARGGGGG

Bonne_den_kule · Post by **Bonne_den_kule** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:48 pm

There are many ugly skinned programs, but also some nice one, fF.exp Opera, which has a totally customable GUI.

Post by **Dare2** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:32 pm

I guess it depends on the skin.

If it looks ok and things are obvious, np. If it looks crap or things are hard to understand, problem.

Neither hate nor love skins. Dislike some, like some, neutral about some.

Some things (skinned -v- non-skinned apps, browsers, etc) seem to generate a lot of emotion. Wonder why?

naw · Post by **naw** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:10 pm

@Kale (and everyone really)

Yeah! Its that *Totally Unnecessary* Skinning that bugs me.

So many Apps you will only ever use once - eg: your Mouse Config Tool - so whats the point in a *Skin* to *Enhance the User Experience*.

Perhaps if they spent a little less time on unnecessary SW development the product would be cheaper / faster / more reliable.

Apps that try to mimic a Consumer Device I find particularly annoying. eg a Media Player that attempts to mimic a CD Player. If I wanted to use a CD player, I wouldnt be using my PC, right?

A few years ago, we did some experimental User Interface work for some of the big Supermarkets in the UK. We mimicked the User Experience of going through the Virtual Aisles and picking items off the shelves.
Although performance was fine and the interface was slick, everyone hated it. Users who would need such a *Friendly* interface simply dont use computers.

People who use computers are able to cope with *proper* applications with ease and feel they are being condescended to with a Virtual SuperMarket approach.

I feel the same way with Skins. They just get in the way.

dagcrack · Post by **dagcrack** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:06 am

No in fact they add the skin so it looks like your money paid for it (I mean.. they got to add some crap for charging you and make it look elaborated)

Emh... If they just didnt used programmers as artists

!
Low budget I guess...

I always say: You want it skinned?, MAKE IT OPTIONAL!.

Custom Skins on applications like those are ok for little kids and teenager girlies though..., they mostly use their PCs for chatting... and well, downloading some nasty things when no ones watching... Hence they are always full of virii and crap, thanks to this people a worm can spread easily on the net... But thanks to them I earn money too

netmaestro · Post by **netmaestro** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:01 am

Well, the Nero skin is stupid. I hate working with it. But I endure it because it's a great app.

WishMaster · Post by **WishMaster** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:03 pm

Nik wrote:Hehe when every App uses it's own system It reminds me of Linux and in Linux I see how problematic this approach is and I hate it.

Have you ever tried KDE?

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:15 pm

KDE Is heavy Bloatware so I use GNOME but I know there every environnment has it's own style and most app written for that environnment look right in it but you have to mix environnments very often wich results in well crap.
@dagcrack what Kiddie software do you Design?
I'm wondering whether nero is Kiddie software because it looks like it.

utopiomania · Post by **utopiomania** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:14 pm

I neither love or hate skinned apps, or see any reason to hold strong opinions towards them at all.

I love apps that manage to combine good looks with ease of use, and if they combined skins with good
programming to achieve that, no problem.

I must admit most of the skinned apps I've tried so far sucks, BADLY. Don't know why, probably
because theire programming teams sucks too.

But why the fact that an app is skinned or not should pose any problem by itself is beyond me.

naw · Post by **naw** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:29 am

@utopiaman,

But why the fact that an app is skinned or not should pose any problem by itself is beyond me. Wink

Perhaps because they burned so much time thinking wether they should do round buttons or square, a blue background or a green one... the decisions are endless.
Perhaps more time could be spent making a good app instead?

My point of view is that the Host OS (Windows / Linux) is designed to handle that stuff for you so the developer can concentrate on making a good app.

On the flip side, a standard GUI allows the user to concentrate on how to use the App not force the User to learn an ill-conceived Interface and the App.

IMO 99.9% of Skinz are useless and add nothing to the quality of the app.

dagcrack · Post by **dagcrack** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:34 am

Well they lack in software engineering most of the times

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:47 am

I dislike skinned apps. I have a couple of media programs that I use a lot that have skins and it bugs me, but at least the skins aren't as bad as some of the ones shown above.

The only time I have used skins is software aimed at kids. And then the skins can be very helpful and you can greatly simplify the control of the application and make it more "fun" looking to youngsters.