On Wednesday 24 July 2002 10:37 pm, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 21:07, Albert Wagner wrote:
> > No, the metaphor of a manual spreadsheet drove the design of both the UI
> > and the functionality.  Each is useless without the other, so the design
> > of the two must proceed in parallel.
>
> not really. i mean it depends on the application. certainly there are
> some applications that hinge on thier very visualization. but even so
> the conceptual model will stand on its own. for instance i could design
> a spreadsheet like engine without being certain how it will be
> visualized. i may have the notion that it will lay out like a grid, but
> it's possible that i may, after already completing the backend, decide
> that the 'cells' need not be in a grid after all, and rather can be
> freely placed anywhere on a page. (in fact i've been waiting for this
> --the eventual merging of spreadsheet and word proccessor. ;-)
>
> if you develop your application too closly in relation to its interface,
> you will find yourself back-peddling should you later realize the
> interface should work another way.

The functionality of a spreadsheet had been around for years embedded in 
various business applications that were tedious and unexciting to their 
users.  It was the visual metaphor of a spreadsheet that made it a killer app 
and the saviour of Apple.  Please don't make the mistake of underestimating 
the importance of a UI to public acceptance of a product.  The world is 
littered with applicances that failed simply because they ignored some basic 
rules about how people perceive.  Read: "The Design of Everyday Things" by 
Donald A. Norman.
>
> ~transami
>
> ~transami