Skinning is bad?

I recently read an article on OSOpinion (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16200.html) by Kelly McNeill that essentially condemns personal customization in the form of skinning and themes. While such an article was probably written mainly to get attention (which he succeeded) I think the points raised need to be addressed.

McNeill argues that inconsistency in a user interface is a growing problem and the biggest culprits are programs that let users "skin" or "theme" things. The solution suggested is that OS vendors should ensure that skinning and theming is not possible. Part of this argument is valid - individual programs that are skinnable on a shared system can be problematic.

However, the overall argument is an over generalization. First off, as more and more users work on PC's with their own user accounts, the problem of Bill jumping onto Bob's machine and finding it completely unlike what Bill is used to will decrease. Secondly, many programs such as Object Desktop are designed to provide a consistent user environment across a machine or across an entire enterprise.

The reason why skinning and theming has become popular over the past few years is not merely an aesthetic issue, it's about improving usability. Just as people adjust their car seats and rear view mirrors in my car when they get in, they want to be able to adjust their desktop environment in a similar fashion.

History has shown that people like to personalize things. They do so for many reasons with productivity increases being just one of them.

Object Desktop, for instance, is designed to allow individuals or corporations transform Windows itself. Computers are tools. Let's not forget that. And to be effective tools, they must be customizeable to match the particular usage of the user using it.

McNeill's argument that all desktops everywhere should be identical flies in the face of decades of market research. Automobiles, phones, houses, home appliances, etc. are all personalized to meet the needs of different market segments. Computers, by their very nature, are much more malleable than physical products and can therefore be customized even further. "Skinning and theming", when applied correctly and effectively can therefore personalize desktops to match those needs.

My Grand Prix looks different and functions somewhat differently than my wife’s Ventura. But I have no problem getting into either and driving them. Is Kelly McNeill's opinion of computer users so low that they think that having an interface that looks and feels somewhat different is going to somehow cause those PC’s to be unusable? Unlikely.

A system that has been customized to the specific needs of the one using it is likely to be a more efficient and more effective interface for that user.
McNeil makes several references to "experts" citing quotes about how consistency is important. However, McNeil mistakes consistency across a particular user's environment for consistency across all personal computers.

From a productivity, support, and usability perspective, the goal of the user interface community is to eventually allow people to be able to have their personalized desktop follow them to any computer. If I log onto my friend's computer, my personalized desktop environment will follow me there allowing me to gain the benefits of my customized environment no matter where I am. With programs such as Object Desktop, this ideal is getting closer to reality (users can package up their desktop environments and download them anywhere but it's still a manual process). The argument that customization should be thwarted by OS makers so that all computers everywhere operate identically is chilling - particularly coming from someone who professes to have MacOS X as their primary OS.

What happened to "Think Different"? If people like Kelly McNeill had had their way 80 years ago, we’d all be driving black Model T’s today to our identical houses.

Skinning and theming has exploded in popularity over the past couple of years precisely because of its obvious benefits to users. It's not a movement driven by marketing but rather driven from the bottom up, users themselves wanting to improve their user experience, productivity, and enjoyment of using their PC's. These people lead the way and in doing so have awakened many a company to the benefits of personalized environments across an enterprise or on a per department level (or even a per individual level).