Re: Hi folks (and some random thoughts)

[Adam Elman <aelman users sourceforge net>]

Brian, folks --

First of all, we are definitely including standard keybindings, 
keyboard shortcuts, and standard menus in the mini-guidelines, at 
least in some form.  (I talked to Brian a bit about this on IRC.)

I do have some opinions on the below, as Brian mentioned in his followup...

My main thought here is to note that, as many of us have said many 
times before, just because Microsoft has spent millions of dollars on 
usability testing doesn't mean that they spend a whole lot of effort 
on designing useful and usable software in the first place. 
Usability testing on a lousy design results in a slightly less lousy 
design.

This is not to say that all of Microsoft's designs are lousy, of 
course.  But I think it's really important to approach these things 
with a critical eye, starting from the user's end goals and working 
inward, rather than simply saying "well, Microsoft did it and they've 
been very successful, so it must work..."  I also don't mean to 
single Brian out here; he definitely makes some good points.

At 7:21 PM -0400 8/9/01, Brian Crescimanno wrote:
> One of the main points of lack of usability is the current "bolt-on"
> feel of Nautilus and a browser.  Windows has seen success because the
> file manager and browser were integrated into the desktop.  Not only
> that, they were integrated with each other.  I think one of the main
> goals of the usability project, and of the Nautilus project as well,
> should be to really get Nautilus up to speed as an all purpose file
> manager...integrating it fully with mozilla rather than providing
> minimal support.

I would have to disagree somewhat with this one.  There is a definite 
cognitive difference between managing local files (and, for that 
matter, networked files such as those found on an FTP or WebDav 
server) and viewing a rendered HTML web page and interacting with 
web-based apps through things like forms.  There are many operations 
which are similar, but I think the user will tend to see them as 
separate.

As an example: in a file manager window, you expect to see icons and 
captions that you can manipulate directly.  In a web browser window, 
you expect to see rendered HTML pages, form elements, etc. that you 
can click on.

There are certainly parallel operations, and you certainly want some 
level of integration and a lot of similarity between the two apps, 
but I think it's good for them to remain separate interfaces as far 
as the user is concerned.

> Also, the fuctionality of the file manager needs to extend down into all
> file management realms of the Desktop.  For example, when you attempt to
> open a file from an application, a window that looks like it's part of
> the file management system should open.  This window should also have
basically the full functionality of the file manager
[...]

I'm also not sure this is the right way to go either, although it 
admittedly makes sense.

I'm really fond of the OS X way of doing this, which actually 
_attaches_ the "Save" panel to the document window with which it is 
associated, making it clear which document is being saved.  I think 
that might be more important than allowing full management features. 
But I'm not sure.

Later,
Adam

--