[Usability] Close buttons on instant-apply dialogs

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

sön 2001-12-30 klockan 18.41 skrev Matthew Thomas:
> > I think there is some confusion here, I was saying that property
> > dialogs (instant apply) without a close button confuse me.
> 
> They do have a close button. Provided by the window manager.

This has been discussed many times before. The window manager doesn't
have to provide a close button; it doesn't have to provide any buttons
at all. Even if it has one it doesn't have to be easily recognizable as
a close button. Depending on window manager and window manager theme
used:

* The number of buttons vary
* The functions of the buttons vary
* The positions of buttons vary
* The ordering of buttons vary
* The shape of the buttons vary
* The images on the buttons vary

Even if Sawfish is the default and we assume we will have a sane default
theme, it only takes a simple theme change by the user to render any
assumptions about the look and functionality of the present window
manager buttons untrue.


[...]
> > Anyway, back to the Close button for instant-apply dialogs:
> > 
> > Can someone give a real reason why we should dump the "Close" button?
> > As in other then "I think it will confuse users."  As far as there
> > have been usability studies of GNOME (not much) I've never seen this
> > is as an issue. Could we do a usability study on this rather then
> > argue theoretically?
> 
> The confusion is there, but the main problem is that providing more than
> one obvious way to perform a function, with a given input device, slows
> people down.
> 
> I know, I've watched them. Hundreds of them. I've watched people closing
> unsaved CVs in Microsoft Word (why save it when they've already printed
> it, and when they're not going to be using our computers again?),
> repeatedly bouncing between the close button in the title bar of the
> document window and the close button of the `Save changes to Document1?'
> alert, wondering why the damn document isn't going away. Microsoft
> forgot to remove the close button from the title bar of the alert, and
> users think that close button means `Don't Save' when actually it means
> `Cancel'. There's already a button called `Cancel', so (as Gregory said)
> the close button in the title bar shouldn't be there.

Your example is interesting, but irrelevant. In your example, the
confusion is because it is not always clear what the window manager
close button means in that case ("is it cancel or don't save?").
There is no such controversy here. The window manager close button as
always means "close this window", and the button on the window labeled
"Close" is pretty straight-forward.
The danger of confusing this button with one that would exit the
application is minimized because we use different terminology; "Quit" is
reserved for exiting applications.


> Conversely, I've watched experienced users uninstalling a program in
> Windows 2000, and then wasting several seconds wobbling between the
> `Close' button at the bottom of the Add/Remove Programs window and the
> close button in the window's title bar, wondering which one they should
> click. The window manager already provides a close button in the title
> bar for non-modal windows, so the `Close' button at the bottom shouldn't
> be there.

Again, an interesting example. What you're forgetting though is that not
all users use the title bar buttons. Why should they? Windows are
usually the right size to begin with, they often don't use multiple
applications at the same time, and everything else can be managed from
inside the applications, like File/Quit.
Note that I'm not saying that title bar buttons aren't useful (they
certainly are), I'm just saying that some users simply don't use them,
and are not used to use them, even if they know that they exist, and are
usually terribly confused by any special dialogs that don't leave them
any "obvious" way to close them. I've witnessed that many times during
computer classes.
In general it seems many users don't use the title bar buttons simply
because they find it difficult to remember what the tiny images
represent, in a similar way to why many users often don't use icon-only
toolbar buttons but prefer named menu entries or toolbar buttons with
text.


> > We shouldn't design for every brokeness.  However if it doesn't really
> > cost us anything, why break it for some user.
> 
> Because leaving the `Close' button in would slow down the interface for
> *every other* user. (Not to mention wasting a whole button-row's worth
> of screen space.) Sure it doesn't cost us, but it costs the user.
> Personally I think implementing an interface which is wilfully
> inefficient like that is immoral, though I can understand how other
> people can take it less seriously.

Now you're exaggerating. It doesn't slow down the interface for "every
other user". On the contrary it gives a lot of users a familiar way to
close the dialog, because they are looking for dialog buttons.

Also, a dialog close button gives keyboard-only users an obvious way to
close the window without having to resort to window manager shortcuts,
which also have to be remembered to be useful. Clearly a dialog close
button is a help to accessibility.


Christian