I have noticed that many people will use Xcelsius for displaying information much like in a webi report. This is where we really break away. I use Xcelsius strategically for answering specific business case questions. This is of course not the only way to use it, but it’s what we provide our customers.

I think that maybe the original point to all of this is being mindful of the balance between “Flashy” and Functional. because if your too much one way or the other you may have missed the boat.

In my statement, I never implied that the flashy is needed..
“The sleek look of Xcelsius with simplistic interactivity captivates the attention of customers the same way that advertising does in print, web, and television media”

I was making an observation based on what I see on a day-to-day basis.. Our exposure to advertising through various media (web, tv, and print) is intended to invoke emotion. The reality is that many people who see Xcelsius for the first time have a similar emotional reaction based how the product looks, and the spinning and shiny widgets certainly does contribute. I agree with you that Tableu’s approach is well done, in that most of their dashboard examples apply simple and relatively easy to understand information, as opposed to some of the Xcelsius examples floating around. I have seen countless Xcelsius deals close over other technologies because “Xcelsius looked better.” Looks will only get you so far just like the underwear advertising. If the product does not deliver based on the customer’s expectations, the product will become shelf-ware.

On your second comment…

You are absolutely correct, that a gradient or subtle styling does not have direct impact on ease of use; at least in a positive way. However, an application’s incorporation of familiar navigation paradigms and visual controls is a contributing factor that does impacts ease of use. Most of the Xcelsius skins borrow design cues from Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe, (with a web 2.0 flare) and applies them to common web navigation controls. While dashboards do not need gradients and drop shadows to effectively communicate quantitative data, the use of subtle gradients within navigation controls does provide some depth making the compilation more interesting. I am definitely not the authority in the psychology of this, but organizations like Apple, who are thought leaders in user experience design, have been perfecting this over the years. If Web 1.0 controls were good enough, why do thought leaders like Google to Apple spend so many resources refining their web control aesthetics?

This may be a null point based on your critique of my original misleading statement, but I do appreciate you pointing it out so I could take the time to respond and continue this thread.

Xcelsius skin comparisonhttp://ryangoodman.net/blog/media/skindemo/skin.gif

Successfully marketing and selling a good BI tool does not require spinning, shiny widgets in the product features, just look at Tableau Software.

Also, you say “there is no reason why interactive controls can’t be stylized with light gradients to provide some depth and create that perceived ease of use”. I wonder what authority ever said gradients provide ease of use? Just because others jumped off this cliff doesn’t mean you need to jump off too.