For years, one of the big selling points of Windows was its consistency: once you've learned how to use one Windows application, you've learned a lot about using most Windows applications. You could say essentially the same thing about Mac OS, KDE, and GNOME, and for that matter about Java/JWT and Java/Swing applications. If the user expects to see File, Edit, View, and Help menus, your application will be easie For years, one of the big selling points of Windows was its consistency: once you’ve learned how to use one Windows application, you’ve learned a lot about using most Windows applications. You could say essentially the same thing about Mac OS, KDE, and GNOME, and for that matter about Java/JWT and Java/Swing applications.If the user expects to see File, Edit, View, and Help menus, your application will be easier to learn if those menus are present. If the user expects to see a toolbar and is familiar with a specific set of toolbar icons, then you can improve your application’s usability by meeting those expectations: you’re providing instant familiarity by adhering to standards.The objections to these standards, which I most often hear from designers, are that they lead to ugly, boring applications. But often, the alternatives that they deem beautiful and exciting turn out to be hard for users to learn. I have sometimes heard myself sneering at these attempts as “eye candy,” although I do appreciate attractive visuals. In its day, Visual Basic led to a run of horribly designed user interfaces, as well as some very nice ones, by giving designers more power. Flash has done the same for Web sites, and I fear that Windows Presentation Framework will be taking junky eye candy to new levels on Windows.What’s your take? Software Development