The last few releases of Ubuntu have really shown the operating system to be an innovator and leader. I’ve been using Linux since the mid 90′s, and for years Linux-based operating systems were technically more impressive than Mac OS and Windows, but was always playing catchup on the desktop. That’s changed in more ways than one.

Ever since Mac OS X brought Unix technology to a well-established desktop, things like stability haven’t been so impressive anymore. And Windows 7 is really nothing to sneeze at. Linux operating systems really need to bring it.

And Ubuntu has definitely been pushing the envelope. Canonical doesn’t get the public credit it deserves for integrating an app-store style “Add Application” system seamlessly into the desktop before the iPhone’s App Store even existed. But recent Ubuntu editions have been getting ballsier, with Facebook and Twitter integration built directly into the desktop. For once, Linux is getting things that are truly useful to the end-user, before they make it to Windows or the Mac. Next up, Canonical’s Mark Shuttleworth is planning some aggressive (and controversial) changes to the Ubuntu desktop user interface.

Things are just getting interesting.

A valid point made in this article is that it’s deceptive for Web application to masquerade as something it’s not–ie. a native application–because it violates the instincts that the users have acquired based on context.

When I use my Ubuntu computer, my brain goes into Ubuntu context. When I switch to my MacBook, there’s a conscious change of context: I start using Apple’s Command Key combinations, for example. That’s why I look for MacOS apps that feel like MacOS programs. It’s not hard to change context; it’s hard when the  behaviour doesn’t fit the context.

What I like about Gmail is that it uses some of the same ideas from applications like Outlook, but the interface is strongly based on the context of the web browser. That means that there are a lot of things Google added that made sense for someone using web mail–such as the Webclips or Google Talk built-in; and also that they avoided trying to do the drag-and-drop things that didn’t make the same intuitive sense.

Still, web developers aren’t as limited as they were before, and as MacOS, Windows and Unix have stolen relentlessly from each other, we should expect Web Apps to copy from the offline app world. The main thing is not to falsely imply via the interface that the web interface reproduces a native interface more faithfully than it does. The Uncanny Valley effect isn’t just visual: it’s most frustrating when the visual metaphor breaks down.

An important concept in design is affordances: the obvious characteristics we can intuit about an object from its design, just by looking at it or even feeling it. A door knob affords a turning and pulling motion, whereas a flat plate suggests pushing. When you’re used to certain appearance (blue underlined text) in a certain context (web pages) affords a certain action (eg. clicking sends you to the linked page), it becomes a matter of instinct.

In Windows, you learn that certain objects can be right-clicked, and certain actions can be undone. So if your interface looks like a Windows app, then users will be disappointed when they can’t do those things. Not to mention that MacOS users may not have the same expectations.

The solution isn’t to avoid adding new features: it’s to keep the interface consistent, and to keep in mind the context of the web. A great example is the original PalmPilot. Rather than trying to make a tiny, feature-poor knock-off of an existing desktop operating system, PalmOS created a whole new way of relating to small devices. Rather than disappointing users by implying expectations that couldn’t be met, they created a new context. Similarly, the iPhone uses a specialized interface that’s different from the desktop interface, not just in behaviour but also in look.

Bottom line? Here are my guidelines for web app design without Uncanny Valleys:

1. Do include features like drag ‘n drop, cut ‘n paste, right-click context menus, etc.
2. Don’t make your user interface look too much like a Windows or Mac application.
3. Do copy some of the common design features of modern apps, like a File/Edit menu where appropriate.
4. Don’t forget it’s a web app, and don’t try to convince the user that it’s not.
5. Do embrace the advantages of being a web application, such as links, working back buttons, mashed-up web content, etc.