>>>>Not only that, but many times you can only make your GUI as effective as the customer will allow. You can design an impressive GUI and the customer may want a 'dos-based appearance.' I've had apps with dual type GUIs and each user chose the design they wanted to use. Sometimes they want it to look like something else they saw even when that design may not be as efficient. I can't count the number of times a customer has insisted on a different appearance or approach based on any number of things. It's all about pleasing the customer in the end.
>>>
>>>You're abosolutely right....
>>>I've taking over some FPD application in 1995 or so, with a typical DOS GUI. It seems very ancient to us as developers, but everytime I visit the shop I wrote it for I'm amazed with how well they are getting along with the application: They only need the mouse to start the application, the rest is keyboard only.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again as I said before in this thread: Impressive GUIs <> effective GUIs
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand that distinction. Isn't an impressive GUI one that is easy and productive to use? i.e. effective.
>
>Function does not follow form. Form follows function. An impressive GUI does not imply an effective GUI per se, unless the purpose of the GUI is only to impress :)

Depending on what impresses you. I am impress with a software that functions and gives the desired output, easy to use, and smart screens. The developer should have both skills and if not, should take effort to address those aspects of software development in order to produce good software. However, there are some people who can be impressed by just giving them the right output regardless of the screen.