Re: What to use on GTK+3

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Igor Korot <ikorot01 gmail com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Thiago Bellini Ribeiro
<hackedbellini gmail com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:46 AM Daniel Kasak <d j kasak dk gmail com> wrote:

 No no no. Everybody is wrong. What we need is:

[ Actually, now that I come to think about it, this is not the action
 I would like to take at this time. Thankyou all the same]
[ This is precisely the action that I require, and I thank you for the explicit dialog and verbose text in the buttons; it really makes sure
 I know what it about to happen, and possibly makes the rest of the
 text of the dialog redundant, but hey, at least there is zero scope
 for confusion]

The whole point here is to _be redundant_. Why? For some reasons, but a
 major one is: Users don't read dialogs!

Why people think this? Was there a statistical analysis about it?
How many people do read them comparing to how many people don't?

I understand the curiosity, but if your goal is to develop applications, I'm unsure you are asking the right questions.

A.) Microsoft and Apple both have long standing documentation in their human
   interface guidelines to discourage dialog response buttons that
dont have their own context (i.e. "Yes" or "Go ahead"), most UX experts seem to agree on this, for close to a decade. I would not take it on myself
   to try to prove them wrong.

In other words, in absence of proof, either you spend enormous time yourself doing these studies, or, the practical thing is follow current recommended

B.) As Thiago mentioned, this need not be about whether users read all the text or not, but "you reduce the user's memory load", this in itself is a very good argument, your software is easier to use, the appropriate response
   can be 'gleaned'.

I.e., Even if you assumed everyone read dialog text, it would _still_
   be worth the effort to make your application more user friendly, by
   reducing what they have to remember from session to session.

Where can I see it? And who did it?

Some have provided links, but I think the best source of the documentation you are asking for will be in the (probably private) bug tracking repositories and tech support history and documentation for companies with large user bases,
who had to learn this from experience (I can only imagine how many disks
have been completely wiped just because your common grandmother followed her
grandson's advice to just say "yes" to "all that complicated stuff").

That said, there is another interesting point which nobody has brought up, and that is translatability of your application.

Consider the phrase: "Don't you want to go home ?"

English: No, means "no I dont want to go home"
Korean:  No, means "no, I do want to go home"

Especially in the majority of cases, where application developers use GTK_STOCK_YES, and the translation actually comes from GTK+, there is no
way for translators to read the question, and put an appropriate word
for the response, instead they are stuck with a translated "Yes". Even
if you did not use the stock GTK+ "Yes" and translated your own "Yes" string,
it will be more work for translators to cross-check the dialog string
and make special exceptions for scattered occurrences of "Yes" throughout
your application.

A translated "Yes" without context becomes meaningless in many languages.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]