Re: [Usability] Instant Apply Windows

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

tor 2002-01-03 klockan 16.47 skrev Gregory Merchan:
> > > > > This is not a compromise. This is what those of us who have looked into
> > > > > common practice and have observed users in action are against.
> > > > 
> > > > No, we're not against it. "Look into common practice and observe users"
> > > > and you'll see that there are a significant number of users that are
> > > > really confused by dialogs/preference windows with no obvious way to
> > > > close them.
> > > 
> > > Aren't you so cute and witty? ha. ha.
> > > 
> > > The conjunction indicates that both conditions are to be satisfied.
> > 
> > Yes. There are two sides of the coin, and there appearantly must be some
> > sort of tradeoff or compromise in "buttoning", since both removing
> > buttons and keeping buttons is mutually exclusive.
> 
> I mean the conjunction "looked into common practice and have observed users".

I just used your words.


> > > Even if having two apparent ways to close the window did not make it less
> > > obvious how to close the windows, you cannot satisfy the condion of
> > > identifying common practice. Any cuteness is irrelevant.
> > 
> > What do you mean by "you cannot satisfy the condion of identifying
> > common practice"? Are you disqualifying my user observations, while on
> > the same time offering no proof that your observations should represent
> > "the common practice"?
> 
> Is "common industry practice" any more clear?  I mean by this, that which
> has been done before in graphical user interface.

That which has been done before in graphical interface in this case
doesn't take into account a situation where you don't have as much
control over the window manager and it's usability. We can optimize for
a certain window manager, but we shouldn't reduce usability when used
with others.


> > > And even if you disagree with that, the point still stands that what is
> > > shown is not a compromise.
> > 
> > It might not be a compromise that you like, but still uses a different
> > wording and a clearly different set of buttons from a traditional dialog
> > to satisfy your worry about it not being clear enough that the window is
> > instant-apply.
> 
> This is black and white.
> An instant-apply window has a button in it that closes it or it does not.
> 
> There is no middle ground on that point and no compromise possible.

So you are of the opinion that users never read button labels? The point
in this case was that different button labels very well can give
different hints on what the window and the button does.


> > > >                                        . . .The only thing you
> > > > accomplish by removing all buttons is removing the obvious way to exit
> > > > the window for many users, and make the window harder to navigate for
> > > > other users, not bringing some extra mysterious "clarity".
> > > 
> > > Do you have any usability studies to prove that?
> > 
> > Do you have any usability studies to disprove that? It's you that want
> > to remove all buttons, not me.
> 
> Back and forth, back and forth. "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!"
> 
> I thought the nature of the comment would be apparent by the fact that it
> was repeated, but I guess not.
> 
> No one has presented any sort of published and peer reviewed papers on this
> matter.  I have presented the reasons given by the MacOS designers and
> have shown that the two platforms with instant-apply do not include a close
> button. This is what evidence we have for use.

The Mac OS guidelines assume that there will always be a title bar close
button at the same location in the title bar, and upon that base further
recommendations. Since the assumption isn't necessarily true in the
GNOME environment, the outcome isn't necessarily true in the GNOME
environment either.


Christian