I’m currently involved in the design of a prototype Silverlight 3 application used by call centre operators in an enterprise who take queries via phone and email. The intention of the prototype is to demonstrate how Silverlight can be used to improve the UX and overcome some of the hurdles of using ASP.NET webforms in a high latency environment. I won’t go into the details of the environment or the rationale of Silverlight 3 vs 2 or WPF, this question is about usability;
I’m looking for examples of good user interface design suitable for the above requirement that highlight some of the benefits of Silverlight. It’s a prototype so it can be a bit sexier than your usual enterprise app and have a few more bells and whistles than you’d usually get from user requirements. The goal is to both provide something functional and introduce the “wow” factor. Appreciate any resources or examples you can think of.
You've got a stateful client - one of the interesting things to do is leverage that state.
For example:
Task centric UI with multiple active tasks.
Each task represents a process/workflow that has begun, but not yet completed. Especially useful in scenarios where ther are interrupts.
Auto-save drafts to local isolated storage in case the app restarts, browser closes etc. Any partially filled forms can be restored when the app is re-launched.
The other thing is context... or preserving context of the task at hand. For example, if you want to do a lookup, you can popup a dialog, rather than navigate away from the current page.
Just some quick ideas...
Have you seen http://quince.infragistics.com? Although not specific to Silverlight it's full of proven UI methods - not Infragistics specific!
I find it very useful when designing forms and controls, maybe you will find some good suggestions there.
I like the way it encourages (forces) all your service calls to be asynchronous. From the UX point of view it means that your form is not locked up while performing a potentially laggy operation.
Animations are nice too. While they're often considered useless fluff, they can reduce the amount of surprise the user experiences when something suddenly changes. They can also be used to draw attention in a more subtle way that a messagebox in the face.
Related
Forgive me if this is the wrong place but I am curious as to how other programmers feel about this topic:
I am currently working on my portfolio site, it is being designed and built in silverlight 4. I initially started off with a typical stylised e-folio theme much like a standard website in terms of layout and flow.
As I work more in the concept stages something has struck me. Am I trying to shoe-horn yesterday into today? What I am talking about is UI expectations. I'm all for clean user interfaces but that does not mean they should not take advantage of new concepts in presentation right?
If you where to develop a site in silverlight as your own portfolio piece would you stick to the tried and tested "website" feel or would you try to come up with a UI that is intuitive and complements the technology?
I feel that UI discussions are all the more important now that all forms of web development are allowing better methods to engage the user.
One of the most important things in UI design is to avoid being "clever". Understand the cultural, psychological and experiential expectations of your users and meet those expectations, don't challenge them. If a user has to learn your UI concept, or an unusual mental model of information organization, you have failed.
Read The Design of Everyday Things and Designing Visual Interfaces to dig into these ideas more deeply.
There is (very nearly) no such thing as a new UI scheme - simply new arrangements of the basic concepts of user interaction - see the iPod click wheel, for example. Almost without fail, anyone who thinks they have come up with some great new interface concept has actually just come up with crap that doesn't follow any of the rules of UI design - and it's bound to frustrate users, make them feel stupid, or make them think the designer is stupid.
If you understand these basic pieces, you can use new technologies like Silverlight to put them together in better ways than ever before. Again, the key is understanding them and what drives them, and how they align with the user's conscious and unconscious needs.
There's two answers to this: macro and micro.
On micro level, the usual UI design idea is to NOT violate the users' expectations.
If they expect a certain type of widget/flow/look to do "X", don't make your site do "Y". It confuses or even frustrates the users.
However, you can always come up with new widgets/paradigms! (an example would be expandable panes upon introduction of JavaScript)
On a macro level, if you can come up with a new work/view/data flow or feel due to new technologies used (Silverlight), most certainly try it!
However, as usual, follow the Nielsen mantra... Hallway test!
Come up with an idea, prototype, and try it out on 5 people you know (coworkers, friends, family) to gauge usability "in real life".
I would avoid making a Silverlight application that is the same as a web page. But were I to make a portfolio, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the Silverlight basket either. (Well unless I had the money to wait for a Silverlight job.)
I would look to embed a couple small applications made in Silverlight. Depending on what you want to emphasize, it could even be something as simple as a calculator with cool effects on the keys. Another idea is some kind of feed reader.
First I'd like to make it clear, I'm not looking for a "my tech is better than yours" type of post; this is a real case scenario and I have been faced with this decision. With this in mind, let me explain:
We have a WinForms application. It started in the early .NET 1.0 but the first shipping version was using .NET 1.1. There are layers (like BusinessLayer.dll, Datalayer.dll, Framework.DLL, etc.) but at some point during the "long" development cycle of this application, the "presentation" layer (Win Forms) got infected with some code, thus the "separation between the code and the presentation with code behind" is some sort of myth.
Bad practices or whatever, the truth is that the application is there and it works.
Years passed and we had .NET 2.0, we slowly migrated and it mostly worked, had to change a few calls here and there. Last version did the same thing, but for .NET 3.5sp1. We needed some sort of Webservices thing, and decided to use WCF instead. It works fine.
But despite all these .NET upgrades, most of the application's codebase is still the same old rock and roll from 5 years ago. We use Gentle.NET (old and unmaintained now) for our dataobjects (it was a blessing 5 years ago!).
Our presentation layer, the winforms, are "nice looking" since we employ 90% of completely gdi+ custom controls. (whenever possible without having to hack the WinAPi). The application is touch based (i.e.: it makes use of the Ink but it doesn't rely on that), but the buttons, labels, etc, everything is "designed" to be used with a tactile device. (TabletPC or Touchscreen). Of course some users use keyboard/mouse.
With all that in mind, and with all this web2.0 and Internet fuzz (plus Jeff's posts ;) ), we are considering the possibility of rewriting the application but using a web technology.
The idea is obviously bringing more availability for our customers (they can use the system whenever/wherever they want), and less maintenance (we can upgrade and it is an instant upgrade for 'em all), etc. You know, the usual Internet vs WinApp thingy.
The problem is that given that this is the healthcare industry, not all of our customers might be willing to "move" their databases to our server/s, which is acceptable, and would force us to install a webserver/database server in their own servers so they have their own copy. Not a big problem (except we would have to update those manually but that's not an issue, given that we've been updating win32 apps for 5 years now!).
Now, back to the main "question".
The team has little Asp.NET experience, we did program a lot in ASP 2.0 (in 1999/2000) but that was a spaghetti of HTML+VBScript+CSS, so I don't think it counts. After all that experience (the Internet bubble!) we went back to VB6 then C#.NET 1x and you know the rest of the story. We're a small team of C# developers for WinForms. We've acquired some Linq To SQL Experience in our last .NET 3.5 ride, and we liked it. We felt it very natural and very "if we would have had this five years ago…" like.
Given all this, rewriting the application is not a "simple task" (not even if we wanted to do it in the already known C#.NET), it would take time and planning, but we could correct dozens of mistakes and with 5 years of experience working with the application, we now can say that we have a better idea of how the customers would like to use the software and what limitations we created (by ourselves) when we designed the current app.
All that "knowledge" of the application and the way the business works, could be applied to produce a much better application in terms of design and code and usability. Remember in .NET 1.1 we didn't even have generics! ;) (you'll see lots of ArrayList's hanging around here).
As an additional note, we use Crystal Reports (and, as usual, we hate it). We don't think the ink control is a "must" either. The HTML/CSS could be shaped to look the way we want it, although we're aware that HTML is not WinForms (and hence some things cannot be reproduced).
Do you think that planning this in MVC (or WebForms) would be too crazy?
I like the MVC (ruby on rails like) idea (I've never programmed in ruby beyond the basics of the book), so no one in our team is an expert, but we can always learn and read. It mustn't be "rocket science", must it?
I know that this whole question might be a little bit subjective, but would you replace an aging Winforms application with a new ASP/MVC/XXX web application? Do you have experience or have tried (and had success or failed) ?
Any insight in helping use better decide what to do will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE: Thanks to all who responded, we'll evaluate whether this is a good move or not, it sure is a hell of work, but I am afraid the the desktop app is getting older (using old net 1.1 hacks) and tho it has been more or less working without problems in Vista and W7, I'm afraid a future update may break it.
Also, lots of "more or less core" parts of the application are exposing some badly designed ideas and we had to hack here and there to accomplish certain tasks. Part inexperience, part lack of 100% knowledge of how the business worked (and Customers not sure what they wanted).
A new application (in any form) would allow us to create a better foundation while retaining all the user knowledge.
But, it's a L O T of work :) So we'll consider all these options here.
As some of you have mentioned, maybe a thinner client and some (ab)use of WCF here and there might be more appropriate.
Once again, thanks to all!
It would be best to ditch all your efforts of reusing the desktop application code when you recreate the web app. Following are the reasons:
Web apps especially asp.net use a different model. For starters note http is stateless. Each time the browser talks to server you have to explicitly send the current content of all the controls on the current page. You would not have used such a model in your Windows application.
To decrease load on the network you want to optimize the size of viewstate and how frequent you make http requests. Again your existing window app does not have any such provisions.
Updating view. You might have different event handlers, threads and what not in your windows application to update the GUI in different scenarios. All of that will need to be replaced. Javascript is a totally different animal.
Security. When using a browser your access to the local disk is highly limited whereas you will take the same for granted in windows application. If there is any code in the windows app that requires local resources, then that is going to be a trouble spot for you.
I would recommend the following:
Verify if your current application has any local disk access requirements (e.g. read/write to local file etc).
As you write the different http modules or handlers, you can try leveraging some of the backend/ business logic part of the existing windows application.
Give some thought to what part of your application can become a web service.
It sounds like the application needs a lot of refactoring to clean it up. If you want to move to a web model, and have maximum reuse you will really need to do that. Before you move to a web model I think you need to understand if it will be possible to replicate your user interface in that model. Is it your unique selling point from a customer perspective? You want decisions like this to be user driven rather than purely technical decisions.
It sounds like your application is the perfect candidate for a thick client application, rather than the lowest common denominator web model.
Some things to consider:
How will the web interface impact the Tablet interaction?
What new customers will having a web version bring you?
Will existing customers abandon your product?
Do you have access to consultants or outside resource with the right skills to mentor you in web technology? If you don't you can rely on StackOverflow or other web resources to help. You need some good mentoring and guidance on the ground with you.
What happens if you start this effort and it takes much longer than you expect? You know the app but don't sound like you know the web. Past experience shows that massive rewrites like this can end in disaster (it never sounds so difficult at the start)
Can you possibly write new features in a web-based version?
Could you move to ClickOnce deployment to make the application easier to deploy to customers. One of the benefits of the web is easier (zero) deployment. Can you get closer to that?
Would it be easier to migrate to WPF and create a browser application with that?
Silverlight or Flex might be better options for creating a rich experience, and may be more approachable for WinForms developers. Is this a possibility?
It seems like your app. is one of those that works best as a desktop app. Though you want your users to be able to access your app. using a browser.
I would suggest refactoring as much as possible so that the GUI gets cleaner and don't have "code".
When you've done this, start developing a asp.net mvc app but keep your desktop app. You should be able to use all layers except the UI layer, making it easier/faster/... Now that mvc exists, I'd say webforms is more about letting non-web devs do web. But you know web, sort of, and you want control so mvc is the way to go.
I have a question and hopefully you can steer me in the right direction.
I'm working on an application that needs some form of decision tree/work flow for lack of a better term. I'll describe it below for some clarity.
I have a request form that users will fill out on a web page. At the beginning of the form is a 'Referral Type'. Bases on the referral type selected some of the form questions will change. There could be 2, 3 or 4 groups of questions depending on the Referral type. Entire groups of questions can be pass or fail.
If the first group of questions fail..then the form stops processing, etc.
What would be the best approach to handle this? Would WPF work well in this situation?
WPF is the Windows Presentation Foundation and is more about the User Interface than a work flow management system. For work flow, you could build your own home-grown database driven solution, or you could use tools like Ultimus or Sharepoint.
You may also be thinking of the Windows Work Flow Foundation.
I have used both Ultimus and home-grown implementations for work flow management. Peers have used Sharepoint. There are benefits or pros/cons to each.
I am unsure how well Workflow works with ASP.NET as I've never tried it. I believe some of the samples may actually cover this so it's possible. That is the first technical hurdle.
It sounds like the logic isn't too complicated. There are a finite number of "paths" that a user can take based on the referral type. Each path is fairly linear, with 2-4 "groups" of questions. Can each group sit on a single page? That would simplify things greatly.
A web framework such as Spring.NET Web Framework might be better suited for this task than Workflow. You are trying to express some condition logic--essentially, "go to the next page if X, else end questioniare". Spring.NET handles this exact sort of logic with its Validation Framework and the Results Mapping.
Workflow is certainly well-suited for this kind of logic, but is there anything that happens in reasponse to each group of questions other than validation? If not, it may be overkill.
Couple of year ago I when to work for company as web developer. It has my first Sirius web development job, (ASPx/C#) so it has very exciting and I learned a lot about that world, from the developer point of view.
In that group we had a concept for the pages where loaded in the page UC’s (User controls), I don’t know if it’s the same in every web development team with every language, I’ll assume it is so.
The contract ended and I came back to develop win32 “winForm” application.
But since them I have tried to apply the same principle for my win32 development I learn there, meaning having bunch of UC’s (Visual User controls) that I load in the form.
They are regular visual components, not loaded in the toolbox, code is available in the project, but the component is not developed in the form, they are loaded there.
I would like to know opinions about this approach, what other are doing similar or better to this And improvements that can help us to speed up development and increase code reuse, because that is what this is all about.
If you're using the layout components in Winforms, this might be an acceptable approach although I think the thing that distinguishes the web and Windows Forms (note: NOT WPF!) is that in the former you do a lot of "compositing" which is why the UserControl concept is so useful whereas in the latter you operate on very sophisticated controls (e.g. 3rd party - in my last gig we used an incredible grid control via a small company called Infralution)
The main problem I would see is with layouts since the rendering model is a little different than the web. I know nothing about your application but if it "works" that is what is most important. I assume in this case you use things like the FlowLayoutPanel and the TableLayoutPanel properly.
If you want to go a more canonical route, take a look beyond simply creating components at how you can use the inheritance model to composite your application in a more robust way - having a base Form class that has containers for where your "UserControl" type components go and then using some kind of interface based dependency injection to swap them out while the application is running.
Finally, take a look at some of the open source Windows Forms applications out there to see if you're being too hard on yourself since common UI and reusable components are a goal in every application. Even though I've always thought Microsoft's Patterns & Practices stuff teetered towards being bloated, there are some good ideas and you should study some of the approaches of the Composite UI Application Block they put out.
Okay, not finally, there's one more thing I'd like to add: take a long hard look at WPF which will bring back a lot of the concepts from your web development days and give you that kind of power in a desktop application.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
The rich presentational capabilities of WPF and Silverlight mean developers like me will be working closely with graphic designers more often these days, as is the case in my next project.
Does anyone out there have any tips and experience (from both points of view) on making this go more smoothly?
For example, when I mentioned source control to a designer recently, I was quickly told you can't source control graphics, images etc, so it is a waste of time. So I responded: ok but, what about XAML files in WPF/Silverlight?
Scott Hanselman spoke about this topic in a podcast, but he focused more on the tools, while I'm more interested in the communication issues/aspects.
One of the things I've discovered is that how you as a developer design your code greatly affects what the designer can do with it. Often you download a Silverlight or WPF sample application from the web and open it up in Blend, just to have Blend crash on you because the code doesn't run well inside the designer. If it doesn't crash, it seldom look anything like the running application.
I recently gave a talk at Tech Ed Australia and New Zealand about techniques you can apply to "design for designability". A short bulled list is included:
Write code that can take advantage of data binding. The Model-View-ViewModel or the presentation pattern is a good fit for this.
Supply "design time" stubs for your service dependencies. If the class you are binding against makes web service calls be sure to replace the web service client with a stub class that returns "dummy data" that the designer consumes inside blend. This can easily be done through IoC and Dependency Injection, injecting one implementation if HtmlPage.IsEnabled == false.
By using data binding you can limit the number of "named elements" you have in your XAML file. If you write allot of code behind you end up coupling your C# code against named elements such as txtName or txtAddress, making it easy for the designer to "screw up".
Use a command pattern instead of code behind click event handlers. By loosely couple the invoker of an event from the handler you can have less named elements, and you give the designer the freedom to choose between a Button or a Menu Item to invoke a specific command.
Test your code in Blend! Even if you consider your self a pure developer you should test that your code is consumable by a tool, and strive to get a best possible experience at design time. Some would argue that a tool shouldn't effect your software design, just as some one complains about "design for testability", and making software design decisions just to make the code more testable. I think it's a smart thing to do, and the only way you can get some real designer-developer work flow going.
Other tips would be to start small. If your designer is new to XAML, WPF and Silverlight, start by introducing them to the project team, and have them do some basic designs in the tools they know. Let them do some buttons and illustrations in Adobe Illustrator, and export it to XAML, and show them how you can leverage their design assets directly. Continue by introducing more and more, and hopefully they get interested and want to make the switch to Blend. It's quite a learning curve, but it sure is worth it!
Good luck!
PS: I have written allot about patterns and making designer friendly code on my blog at http://jonas.follesoe.no. You can also find links to a video recording of my Tech Ed talk, as well as lots of links to further reading on the topic.
I have spent 4 months on a project working extremely closely with a designer and he has still not picked up the basic idea of CVS (which is not my choice of source control system). I'm talking template files, JavaScript and CSS here. He's not stupid, it's just one of these things that makes his job harder so he resists fully commiting himself to it.
In my case I had to really hammer home the point that almost all of my JavaScript depended on the mark-up and when he changed his pure CSS, DIV-based layout into a table-based one without telling me then all my JS is going to break.
Often during the course of the project myself and the designer, who I get on with quite well and play soccer with outside of work, had very heated exchanges about our respective responsibilities. If I didn't know him well enough to just get past these exchanges then I think it would have created an unbearable working environment. So I think it's important you establish between you both and with some sort of manager or project supervisor exactly what is expected of both parties during the project.
In my case there have been very few problems lately, because the situation with CVS has been sorted out as well as the idea that he can't just go and change the mark-up whenever he feels like it. Rather than try and create template files and work on them directly, the designer only works on static files and its my responsibility to plug them into my template files.
It's all about communication and a little bit of compromise on both sides.
This may be a bit off topic (I'm replying specifically to your question about source control and graphics), but you can put binary data (images etc.) into source control (and in my opinion in a lot of cases should) -- they just take up more disk space and you can't use a diff view to analyze what has changed in any meaningful way, but what you do gain is a history of commit messages documenting each revision, rollback ability and the ability to easily archive (tagging a revision in SVN terms) all files (be they visual assets, documentation, source code, whatever) belonging to a specific release/version together. It's also easier for your build system to just fetch everything required for building a specific version of your software from the source control.
Involve the graphic designer in early design and architecture sessions.
You want to involve them to reveal misaligned assumptions and to establish a pattern of working together rather than throwing things back and forth over the wall.
Originally, it was envisioned that professional designers would work in Expression Blend, and developers would work in Visual Studio, making changes to a single shared set of source files. While it is certainly possible to do that (so long as you are careful to check regularly that you haven't broken something expected by the other dev. or design tool), many members of the developer community, including some inside Microsoft, have discovered benefits in keeping Blend and Visual Studio project activity SEPARATE -- even to the point of manually cutting and pasting carefully-refactored versions of Blend-generated Xaml into the "official" VStudio project source, rather than allowing designers and developers operate directly on a single shared code base. Microsoft's User Experience Team in the UK published a video describing the problems they ran into trying to coordinate designer and developer efforts on actual projects.
Real_World_WPF_DesignersAndDevelopersWorkingTogether
One of the main lessons learned is that you can't staff a project with designers and developers who are completely ignorant of each other's domains. Developers need to be familiar enough with Blend that they can provide designers with useful UI shells for the designer to decorate, and useful data "stubs" the designer can design interactivity against, and the designer needs to have enough understanding of development issues that they don't do things like delete controls and replace them with custom visual elements - not realizing that they broke all the functionality tied to the original control.
Microsoft's vision of the designer/developer workflow marriage definitely seems to break down in real life. I have experience working on a fairly large scale WPF project which involved 2 dedicated design resources for about 4 months. Here are some facts that Microsoft seems to often forget.
Designers often prefer to use Macs (designers at my company are 100% Mac - 0% Windows)
Blend doesn't run on a Mac (as far as VM solutions - designers typically don't like geeky solutions like running weird applications in a foreign OS).
Designers use their tools of the trade - Photoshop and Illustrator. Period.
The aggressiveness of today's schedules usually don't provide ample time for designers to learn a totally new application / design environment (like Blend).
So given the above, what I noticed was that this creates a new job type - either a very techy designer or a graphically enlightened programmer. Basically, someone who can take the design assets in raw form - usually .psd or illustrator format and apply these as needed to the application process.
I turned out to be that guy (graphically enlightened programmer). I spent a lot of time exporting XAML from Illustrator files, cleaning them up by hand when necessary, and making these assets easily usable display objects in Blend or VS. There were also times where I would take a a design element and re-draw it using blend ( usually when the original asset was bitmap based and it made more sense to convert it to vector).
My application may not have been typical - as it was extremely graphically rich and resolution independence was one of the main objectives as it needed to look good on multiple resolutions and aspect ratios (think of the difficulties in designing for TV in todays landscape - things have to look good in both low-res SD and scale well up to hi-res HD).
In summary, I think WPF is an awesome technology and absolutely a step in the right direction for Microsoft. It however is not the end-all be-all solution for integrating the designer in the development process - unless you redefine the role of designer.
I'm Felix Corke, the designer from the hanselman podcast you mentioned, so here are a couple of points from a genuine creative as opposed to a developer.
It took a long time to become used to developer tools - I'd never heard of Visual Studio, C# or any type of source control when I first started doing xaml work a few years ago. They were as alien to me as maybe Illustrator or 3DsMax would be to you.
My biggest single point is that the designer can't be expected to know developer practices - please be prepared to do a great deal of hand-holding. You won't have to learn anything new whereas the designer will be launched into a whole new scary side of app development. I made a right mess of a few solutions and checkins (and still do).
Happily, I've learned to become more of an design focussed integrator than a straight creative, and maybe this is a role you need to include in your project. This is the illustration I made for our beauty and the geek - designer/developer session at Mix - if either of you is at too far at either end of the spectrum it can be difficult understand how the other works and what their role should be.
Happy to answer any specific questions!
ps you do NOT want 100Mb+ .psd files in source control ;)
The extent to which designers have come to feel entitled to be distant from the whole of the work involved in building a software product is a much bigger problem that needs to be solved. Don't pander to any designer's expressed right to not have to know how their work gets integrated into the whole.
The kind of stark specialization that has grown up in the designer community is one of the biggest industrial maturity problems that faces the software development industry. It's an extent of specialization that predictably creates more rework and longer cycle times.
This is also true of developers' sense of entitlement to go blissfully unaware of interaction design and implementation.
Extreme specialization is always an exponential multiplier in productivity problems. Solve it organizationally by adopting processes that promote learning cultures. This is the level of maturity that most other production industries have already realized, and that software drags woefully behind.
At every place in a development workflow where handoffs occur between over-specialization, work queues and buffers form. Software remains one of the few industries that doesn't recognize this as one of the biggest problems we face. This is even more exacerbated in the Microsoft community as over-specialization seems ever-more normal due to Microsoft's perpetuation of over-specialization through its tools and guidance. Unless you can afford to waste as much money as Microsoft does in development efforts, you should look to methodologies that are much better informed on questions of flow and productivity.
Consequently, the developer who cannot test and the tester who cannot code is a symptom of the same industrial immaturity.
You won't learn any of this from the Scrum template for TFS. Microsoft was years behind the curve in getting agile thinking in-play even in its most rudimentary forms, and now that we're progressing into Lean thinking, Microsoft will be another three to five years away from trying to incorporate Lean thinking into its product lines. Don't wait for Microsoft to tell you how to shape a team and a workflow. You can learn right now from the people that Microsoft will ultimately pay attention to in a few years.
I'm a big believer in the Integrator approach which is really the role I have had to perform to make our WPF efforts successful.
Laurent Bugnion has a post on this that describes what I'm talking about. Robby Ingebretsen is also a big believer in this approach.
But basically, someone has to cover the 'gap' that exists between the developer world and designer world. What usually happens is that this person comes from either the developer world or the designer world. If they come from the developer world, then they are probably a developer with designer tendencies (they're responsible for look and feel, the visuals in the application, the layout of the screens, etc.). If they come from the designer world, then they aren't afraid of code and the enjoy diving down every now and then to code to get that animation or whatever sparkling.
However, regardless of what world they come from, they usually have to build skills that they never have had before. In my case, I am developer that loves the user interface layer and therefore I would say that I am a developer with designer tendencies. In order to cover that gap and have productive conversations with our graphics designer, I have had to pick up a whole bunch of designer type skills like: learning to use Expression Design, XAM 3D, etc.
Shannon Braun recently gave a presentation at a local developer conference about the developer/designer relationship and the workflows that the community is discovering works for them. I didn't attend the conference, but I thought his slides were a great discussion on the matter.
In my experience, the integrator or "devsigner" role really needs to be involved in this process unless everyone on the (small) team are able to perform this role. This is a very rare circumstance. Usually you will find that developers are very good at developing but aren't so great with design/usability and designers are great with aesthetics/usability but don't want to or are not educated enough to code. Having someone that can crossover into both worlds and "speak the language" is very important.
The integrator needs to coordinate the controls that are being developed with the design assets that are being created by the designers. In our current project, we have 6 active developers and 2 designers from an outside shop. I am the integrator for this project and I spend most of my day in Expression Blend. The developers work primarily in VS creating controls that meet our product spec and the design shop is designing what the end product will look like. The designers are working in Illustrator. My job is to take the Illustrator files and create control styles from them and then apply them to the controls developed by our development team. As we move towards Blend 3 with native support for PSD and AI files, this task becomes much easier.
It is very helpful to create the "look" for your application in a separate solution from the main trunk of the application and then merge your ResourceDictionaries into the main app later. You can get the look and feel correct without getting too caught up in what could still be incomplete controls.
I am going to assume that you refer to RIA projects since your mention of SL.
I have worked one quite a few RIA projects with Adobe designing and developing applications and services.
The best advice I can give you based on based on my 14 years experience as an UX and Visual designer with some programming experience although pathetic compared to you guys.
Accept that you wont understand each other.
The programmer thinks in what functionality should be done, the designer think in how the functionality should behave.
For the developer a button is mostly generic, for the designer it's not the case. Designers think in composition, developers think in frameworks.
So learn to understand that your responsibility is different.
You the developer DO need to think about how generic your code is and can't afford to treat everything as being unique and a hardcoded composition. That is unless you can automate that uniqueness somehow.
The designer DO need to think about the application or service as somehow unique. It might mean that a button is not a button. There might be different sizes or colors or other annoyances.
So make sure you develop a good relationship with the designer by acknowledging that you understand the designers responsibility and make sure he understands yours.
It's not that you are not interested in making the best application in the world. It's just that some of these design decisions takes quite a lot of time.
Make sure that you get very clear on how the designer should deliver to you so you don't waste his or your own time. What format, assets? Naming?
All things that are involved in delivery from one paradigme to another.
And most importantly communicate and respect that they don't know how to do JavaScript or how understand the basic ideas of CVS.
Most developers you wouldn't know how to kern to save their life, what a widow is, how to best layer FireWorks or create a photo-realistic icon, come up with a good tagline or make something understandable to average Joe in 4 words. You don't know what a grid or alignment is and you tend to make things green and purple on black.
And the designer should understand that just because you deal with programming does not mean you are a robot, that you can't have creative ideas and solutions. He should also try to learn how to program at least pseudo program so that he understands what's involved in making your project.
And most importantly. Don't start to debate Mac vs. PC :) Projects have been canceled because of this.
Quite frankly you should tell the designer that images can, should and "will be put in source control mister!" :)
It may be slightly non-conventional and you wont be able to do a merge or anything of that nature, but there will be revisions and a history, etc .. Images can also be embedded in a resource file which goes into source control as well.
XAML can (and should) be put in source control and as its a markup file it will benefit from all of the features.
As far as tips from working with a designer, the one you are working with scares the heck outta me just by that comment alone, so it may all boil down to WHO you are working with. I would explain basic best practices in a nice manner and proceed from there.