Re: Nautilus 2.6 - We're going all spatial
- From: Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>
- To: Seth Nickell <seth gnome org>
- Cc: Dave Camp <dave ximian com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org, nautilus-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Nautilus 2.6 - We're going all spatial
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:05:28 -0400
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 05:34, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > > > > 2) Many of the people who do understand Nautilus will use it less for
> > > > > simple tasks
> > > >
> > > > Have you tested this?
> > >
> > > User testing is not a particularly good technique for determining this.
> > > It is simply one HCI technique out of many (when its useful its a good
> > > technique because its comparatively easy, cheap, and fast). A long-term
> > > use study would be much more appropriate. Have I conducted a long-term
> > > use study? No.
> > Then where is (2) coming from? Is it just a guess?
> It is coming from a trained-designer-with-a-formal-background-in-HCI's
> analysis of the problem. This analysis is formed based on my knowledge
> of the general effects of increase in cognitive friction on people's
> behavior patterns in conjunction with a general sense of the problem
So it's a guess. A fairly educated one, but it's still a guess.
Since other experienced
trained-designers-with-formal-background-in-HCI's who presumably
actually user-tested this stuff seem to disagree quite strongly with you
(Apple has tdwfbih's, right?) I think you need to try to be a bit more
I don't think you have yet made a very compelling point about this.
Since it's a fairly earth-shattering move you are advocating, I still
think you need one.
> > Of course it had flaws and there were other ways you could things and
> > have multiple windows for the same object, but that was still the basic
> > model and how people used it most of the time. The non-spatialness-ness
> > aspects of it weren't even visible to the naive user. (And we are
> > focusing on the naive user, right?)
> 1) It was too visibly *not* the Object model to allow people to form a
> solid conceptual model. Conceptual model's are fragile things. If people
> find evidence that a model doesn't hold don't hold they will often throw
> it away (or worse, will hold them to the exclusion of developing a new
> model, but not have any confidence in them).
> 2) Windows provided certain artifacts that you would also find in an
> object model but they did not manage to communicate the design model
> with sufficient force to develop a parallel conceptual model.
Once again -- I couldn't care less how broken the Windows way of
implementing the spatial metaphor was. I was just pointing out a trend
(from spatial to browser-like), and that it would be wise to have a bit
of a stronger argument before making the brave move of moving against
the trend (and many users' expectations).
At any rate, this discussion is getting boring; we keep going back and
forth without any compelling arguments either way. To me that's a sign
that it's better to leave it as it is -- but if you feel otherwise, all
the more power to you.
Just don't make it sound like it's /completely obvious/ that it's the
right thing to do. ;-)
Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>
] [Thread Prev