Re: [Usability] Close buttons on instant-apply dialogs

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:12:35AM -0600, Gregory Merchan wrote:
> > Just because we can't make this simple assumption doesn't mean we can't build
> > a usable environment.  In fact I would take robustness as a part of
> > usability.  If it is quite simple for the user to remove the close button
> > (and it is) then we shouldn't rely on it.
> 
> It's also quite simple to run without a window manager. See my other reply.

Actually it is not.  It is not very easy at all to use the control center to
make a window managerless environment.  It is trivial to remove the wm close
without even being aware of it (just picking a theme that does so).

> > I have evidence of where it can slow my work to a crawl.  I needed to use a
> > gnome app remotely from a terminal which had a badly setup ctwm which
> > included no way to close a window.  It would be impossible to then change
> > properties/settings in this case.
> 
>    STOP
> 
>    Right here you have indicated that you've missed the point entirely.
>    We are talking about windows with controls that immediately affect some
>    other part of the enviroment. There is no need to close the window to
>    have the settings take effect.

I have not missed the point entierly.  I could theoretically just lower the
window, which is what I did with advert windows that netscape kept poping up.
But this made using the whole system quite unpleasant.  Note there was no
tasklist.

> > Also given that I rarely use the close button.  Having to use it for a singly
> > type of window WILL slow me down.  I am used to running my mouse to the
> > bottom right part of the window for all dialogs (and also what you call
> > utility windows).  Because mostly I will deal with dialogs.
> 
> That's a damn shame and indicates that the system is poorly designed. If
> you're mostly dealing with dialogs, then you may as well be trapped on the
> command line. One of the reasons to change to instant-apply is to be rid of
> modality. Some years ago if you wanted to enter data into something (like a
> spreadsheet or a database, but there are probably better examples) you had 
> to issue some sort of Add command and the system would but you in the mode
> to enter the data. When GUIs started to appear you still had the same way
> of working, but you could see a little bit more at once. Then some bright
> fellow had the idea that you could just enter data directly into some
> representation of whatever and one more dialog disappeared from the interface.

Huh?  There are dialogs all over the place and they are not modal.  I can't
save a file without a dialog.  I can't change a color of something without a
dialog.  I can't change properties of something without a dialog.  None of
these imply modality, and none of these are any worse then a command line.
Again, you are using the slippery slope fallacy.

> I believe the claim about exaggeration was because the question of morality
> was raised. Matthew is not exaggerating in his evaluation; given his values
> and their relative importance in his life, it is for him a moral issue.
> (As far as I can tell. I think there was just some miscommunication here.
>  I hope that clears it up. Let's try to avoid meta-moral debates please.)

As far as I've understood it he was saying that majority of users are having
problem with it (or in his case he exactly said half).  If weren't supposed
to take that argument as faactual it should have been indicated.  And it is
then irrelevant to the debate.  If you say that some amount of users do or
don't do this or that, you'd better have some evidence supporting such claim.

> <snip>
> > <rant>
> > I hate modal dialogs with a passion. [...]
> </snip>
> 
> Don't we all? We should be trying to get rid of them, not make things
> confusing by presenting very similar windows which sometimes block other
> work and other times don't.

I never expect a dialog to block work.  A Close button instills absolutely no
indication to me that this window must be closed before I can do anything
else.  All a Close button indicates is that there is a way to close the
window.  Perhaps there should be a way to visually distinguish modal dialogs,
however a button row desn't seem like the right way to me.

> If you're even thinking of dialogs, you probably aren't the average user.

So why are we trying to make sure that the user knows that we're talking
about a dialog rather then a 'utility window'?  If the user as you seem to
imply shouldn't care.  I think the user shouldn't care, and I don't.  I as a
user got used to calling certain windows dialogs.  I could still call them
windows or whatever else.

> >                                             . . . And I actually remember
> > this.  Mostly because it works in 99% of applications, operating
> > environments.  I can't say the same for the wm close button shortcut,
> > which I don't know in any environment.
> 
> There are two that are standardized. On Mac it's Control+W. On the CUA-based
> systems, it's Alt+F4. I suspect Mac may have slightly better share than
> that remaining 1%, and I've set to find a keyboard way of opening a menu
> there.  (Is there one?)

Alt-S does it for me (because File = Soubor in czech).  Note that there is
visual indication of this on your screen as well.  Though I don't use menus
by keyboard that often for some reason.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   Originality is undetected plagiarism.
                       -- Dean W. R. Inge