John Gruber writes a really long piece poking fun at Eric Raymond and then talking about UI design. Now, I’m all for poking fun at ESR. He needs some ego deflation. But Gruber is so off his horse talking about UIs that it’s not even funny. UI design is certainly not “an art” that “requires innate ability.” One can argue about soft factors within UX and HCI, but usability can be tested empirically and distilled into principles. At the end of the day, good GUIs have to do more with adherence to principles and guidelines and a commitment to user testing than some sort of ‘genius’ sensitivity.
Also, while I wholeheartedly agree on having strong direction for successful UIs, the notion that this is somehow casually related (as implied) on ‘closed source’ software ‘produced by full-time professional engineers’ just doesn’t make any sense. Software engineers left alone would produce just as unusable preference panels regardless of whether it’s closed or open source (also, most OSS developers *are* professional engineers). The difference in interface quality lies with the commitment and focus of *usability* engineers and designers. And even with that effort you’re still not guaranteed anything.
Obviously I agree that good HCI is hard work. Along with documentation, it is often short-changed in typical OSS projects. I’d argue that most of these projects realize this, however they typically lack the expertise not only in the areas themselves, but also in even recruiting those w/ the proper skills to contribute.
Basically, good HCI has much more in common with development (standard practices, iteration, refactoring) than with making a movie (or some ridiculous notion of the genetically gifted ‘HCI savant’).