Re: [Usability] Instant Apply Windows

[Gregory Merchan <merchan phys lsu edu>]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:02:48PM +0100, Christian Rose wrote:
> tor 2002-01-03 klockan 15.29 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".


> > 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.


> > 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.


> > > > A button labelled "Done" is still a Close button because that is the
> > > > command it issues.
> > > > 
> > > >   (Unless, of course, a Done button is supposed to mean,
> > > >    "Now accept my changes."; in which case this is not an
> > > >    instant-apply window, but instead a rather bizarre
> > > >    dialog in that it has not Ok and Cancel buttons.)
> > > 
> > > A Done button is supposed to mean "I'm done with my changes".
> > > There really is no extra danger of confusing it with a traditional
> > > OK/Cancel/Apply non-instant-apply preference window unless you don't
> > > read button labels at all, or notice that the number of buttons and
> > > groupings of buttons is entirely different. . . .
> > 
> > Do you have any usability studies to prove that?
> 
> Do you have any usability studies to show that no buttons at all instead
> of just a "Done" button would make it more clear that this is
> instant-apply?
> Do you have any usability studies that show that removing all buttons
> does not make navigability and accessibility worse for users?
>
> > >                                        . . .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.
>
> Christian


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.


Gregory Merchan