On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 05:11:06AM -0500, Gregory Joseph Merchan wrote: > Presently there are two competing proposed guidelines for dialog boxes: > > http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~s.robertson/software/ui-guide/html/dialog-guidelines.html > > http://www.delanet.com/~jkmissig/interface-guide.txt > > As a contributor to the latter I clearly favor it, though the former looks nicer and makes some excellent points with regard to modality. I'd very much like to see these two documents reconciled and one of them declared official (or official-ish). The current state of dialogs in GNOME is horribly inconsistent. Unfortunately, being the author of the first document, I don't want the differences resolved in the same way that you do. > I would like to see what the result is of combining them with conflicts resolved in favor of the #interface guidelines. We approached the problem with only a few general principles and no testing at our disposal and have rather unsurpisingly reproduced some parts of the acclaimed Mac guidelines. In particular, and in favor of the #interface guidelines, these parts of the Mac guidelines should be noted: > > http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuidelines/HIGuidelines-139.html#HEADING139-0 > > http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGOS8Guide/thig-52.html#HEADING52-114 > > Also the first paragraph of: > http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuidelines/HIGuidelines-139.html > > Of particular note in that paragraph is that, "The default button is not necessarily the button in the lower-right corner; it should be the one for the action that the user is most likely to want to perform." But for one, I can think of no principle which is a substitute for user-testing to determine what the user is most likely to want to perform. That principle is that irreversible destructive actions are generally undesirable; hence, the exception on point 4 of the #interface guidelines, "... except for cases where affirmative is destructive ..." Ok, I have some rather strong feelings on this matter so I apologise in advance if I sound a little harsh. The idea that buttons which cause "destructive" actions should not be the default is truly horrible. I can think of nothing more infuriating than hitting the delete key and then having to press Alt-D rather than enter because the Delete confirmation button was not allowed to be the default. I'm also very dubious about this idea that it's possible to tell which action will cause a loss of the user's data. To illustrate this point, in a slightly oblique fashion, consider the Save command in a File menu. Save must be one of the most destructive elements in a GUI. Every intermediate-level user has encountered the situation where they opened an existing document intending to use it as a template for a new one, ripped out most of the content and started writing their new document. Then they hit Save. What they had intended to do was to hit Save As and make a new file, but they didn't because they were working on autopilot, and the Save command, which should be a shining example of a non-destructive command, just lost them their old document. Ok, so that's not a button on a dialog, but it illustrates the point that changing data can be just as destructive as deleting it, and furthermore, that not saving new data can be less destructive than changing old data. In general, the whole thing sounds too arbitrary. It leaves the user in the position of having to work out whether the developer thought the action was destructive or non-destructive. colin _____________________________ ____ rtnl http://rational.cjb.net c z robertson ndirect co uk icq 13294163
Attachment:
pgpM4QRa4RLy9.pgp
Description: PGP signature