Ingredients UI & Co .: UI Libraries can ruin your project

I never thought that the day would come, but he is there: we are currently working with an authority, and it has done something that has failed 99 percent of all companies. You have strategically taken a very specific decision correctly: you did not only decide on a UI library for your development, but first thought through your technical needs and then took technical decisions based on it.

Advertisement

Unfortunately, this is a complete exception. Because in most cases it moves exactly. And then problems begin. And okay because it is very common and because you can do so much better than most companies, today it is about the use of UI-Libraries.

Save time and effort

A specific landscape: A company is planning a new software and already there are some ideas. Nevertheless, sometimes it is quite good that you support a little to validate the outside that you walk in the right direction from the beginning. This is what we are for counseling companies, because we are not the least. Since we are Domestic web Of course, the subject of UI always comes with specialization in web and cloud development. And many companies believe that they can rely on a library for their UI, for example material UI, and they believe that the question will be answered how (ie with which technology) to build them their UI Needed

Recommended editorial material

With your consent, an external YouTube video (Google Ireland Limited) has been invited here.

A Chinese team makes history by controlling more than 10,000 drones with single computer

Always load youtube videos

Load YouTube video now

First of all, it makes sense: UI-library protects a lot of time and effort in development. At least it seems that at first glance. And this is why companies like to choose: they want to use promised benefits and accelerate their development. That – and I may have to emphasize this point again – a completely valid desire and completely valid idea.

Everything is worth it

However, many companies do not see that this approach is priced. In particular, there are three risks that are inadvertently purchased:

• First of all, you connect to an external solution, whose development you cannot control. As long as you only focus on what is intended as a standard, you are on the mercy of the UI-Library and the decisions of the development team behind it. This is if they decide tomorrow if they do not develop a certain control or change the concept behind the control completely. And then the best you still have the option not to go with the next update, but of course it is not a good option in the long term, as it endangs compatibility with other components and modules.
• This brings me to the number two risk: more and more an external dependence (and if we again think about the content UI, it is a huge dependence), the greater risk of falling at a technical dead end Try not come out without much. Because you may then have to face the choice of living with the old version or reforactor for the entire UI for the new version. And it is usually associated with a fairly high effort, and, in a clumsy way no one wants anyone. So you often live with the old version. And irony, especially with the material UI, often the case occur, because at version five had a huge brake from four and I know a lot of companies which are now permanently stuck on version 4 and thus slowly -The first compatibility problems include other modules are advised.
• Well, and risk numbers three compulsory adaptation problems: UI-Library naturally follow your own design guidelines, and the question always arises: how well you have your own corporate identity or your own corporate design I match? And mostly it is that it does not match at all, so that adjustment is necessary, and then the question is just how easy these adjustments can be applied and even more important: to do yourself at all, or Do you start suddenly, to work against a library or framework?

And only that it is not misunderstood: even if I have mentioned the content UI, here for some time, not due to the problem material and! Material UI is a great UI library until you really desire the design that specifies the material and.

Missing UI/UX know how

We regularly experience that we ask to assess how we assess the idea of ​​relying on content UI (or any other UI library). Because it will already be there, it will be cheap, and you will make it very quickly, and so on. Many companies are then surprised that we cannot react much enthusiastically to this.

We often explain that we would advise against using such a library, just to avoid that you go into great dependence, establish your way in the future and take opportunity for personal adjustment. This means that in many cases we recommend developing our own control, and then the standard counter-observed is always so expensive: because you have to keep in mind the mobile too, and you also care Will have to be kept in, and it has to be kept in mind, and soon.

From my own experience, I can say that on one side it is not as expensive as many always believe, and that not in mobile, access and implementation, but the biggest cost in the concept of user guidance. And these costs are generated anyway, whether it is with the UI-Library. Only do this that it often does not believe it because it is often not really tangible for them, because they have no experience with UX design, for example. However, you know that development is expensive, so try to save costs at this point.

A parrot that can only say “yes”

The whole thing usually ends with the fact that against the advice outside But A UI-Library is used. And then it becomes irony (and I have really experienced it for some time) when the first desires become loud after a few weeks: Control must deliberately look different, behave consciously differently, The matter should be with a CSS framework that is actually really compatible and so on.

Then again, the opposite of which the company had expected to be originally: the cost of development is increasing on a large scale, everything takes a long time, and strange mistakes in the UI to avoid the argument given by the library constantly in the UI Efforts are being made Finally, it can only fail. And then they stand next to it as an advisor and think:

“Okay, this is what I predicted you, but you did not want advice, but a parrot who can only say” yes “, and in reality you only hope to find someone who your suspicious suspicious The idea is. “

Advice should be honest and can also give unpleasant answers.

A different case?

Unfortunately, all this is not a different case – it actually happens all the time. As already mentioned, the actual problem is not a UI-library. Rather, the problem is that companies choose a certain technique, before they actually understand their needs. There is often an argument with time and cost, but the jumping point is: If you do not yet know what you want, you can’t choose a technique to achieve the goal, because you yet Do not know this goal.

It is like buying a prefabricated house and then tearing the walls because later you note that you really wanted a scaffold character. Of course you can do this anyway, but it is a bad idea.

This means that the correct order should be:

• First of all, you should think about what you want from a technical point of view. If you do not know, the possibility is too much, That their development fails completely,
• The second thing you should ask is: our corporate identity and how are our corporate designs, and how should they be reflected in UI? So: How should the UI feel and how should it look so that it is fit for your company?
• Third: What does your UI concept look on this basis?
• And fourth: only when you know all this you can consider what techniques you choose to support you in development.

However, most companies focus on the finals of these four points, and the subject of the UI/UX concept is often ignored. This is very important. In other words, technology comes before the concept for many companies, and soon or later it leads to the absurd work -round.

A better way

Now the question arises: how can you improve it? I have already mentioned a point: it is often not so intelligent to rely on the UI library, but you should develop your own UI components very often. It is often less complicated than eclipse. And the advantage is: Your complete control, remain flexible, be free and avoid many problems in the long term.

However, something else is even more important: and-and I have also mentioned that nothing is basically wrong with the use of up-UI-libraries. You just have to think carefully in advance whether this is a good idea. Are you really 100 percent fit with requirements? Or are there aspects that you want to be separate, in which you want to distract by deliberately trampled, and if you rely on a standard solution, do you not make your life more difficult?

I can only repeat this: Initial cost and early development efforts are almost negligible in long -term. Because often it moves like this:

“Ah, great, we take a UI library so that we now have less work and progress rapidly!”

Yes, and three months later you sit there with 10,000 lines of CSS hack, but the main thing is that you saved for two days work …

Not out of 99 %

So, and then I can only say: don’t celebrate the same mistake! Before deciding for or against a technique, deal with your requirements intensively and check it in relation to your corporate identity and corporate design. Take time out to develop a well -installed UI/UX concept and in evidence of at least concept, it would actually be how complex and complex it would actually design and implement its own UI components.

And as stated at the beginning of this blog post: There are companies that are going to correct it from the beginning, but unfortunately they are rare. So make sure your company is related to this circle!

(RME)