Re: [Usability]Re: An alternative proposal for instant-apply vs. non-instant-apply

[Adam Elman <aelman users sourceforge net>]

At 11:52 AM +0100 9/8/01, colin z robertson wrote:
>  > but it seems fine to concede this as long as its
> >  clear that a dialogue should be instant apply unless there's a specific
> >  reason for it not to be,
>
> This is not clear. You have not yet won the argument.
>
> I'm willing to expand the role of instant-apply dialogs, but only
> where I am sure that the framework is in place for them to co-exist
> with delayed-apply dialogs.

OK.  I've been doing a bit of soul-searching on why instant-apply 
dialogs _are_ a good idea, and I'd like to point that out explicitly 
here.  I think there are a number of people who are pushing for 
instant-apply for various reasons, but a number of people (including 
Colin) who are very resistant, and I think Colin is right that the 
case has _not_ been adequately made here for why instant-apply 
dialogs are frequently appropriate other than "it's gonna happen, so 
deal."

The relevant interface design principle here is called "direct 
manipulation."  Direct manipulation means that user actions have 
immediate effects.  This gives a user the feeling that their actions 
are having a direct effect on their environment, which:

1) Reduces complexity by removing any intermediate steps like 
"Apply."  This allows them to worry about only one control at a time, 
rather than worrying about the combination of controls.
2) Empowers the user by making them feel as though they are in 
control, rather than making a request via a "dialog" with the 
computer.

Basically, the idea of an instant-apply "dialog box" is really to 
eliminate the "dialog" -- instead, it's really just a combination of 
controls which the user is using to directly manipulate their 
environment.  That's why I think of these more as "Property boxes" or 
whatever.

Imagine a radio where you have to set the station and volume _before_ 
the radio is turned on.  Then, to change the volume, you have to turn 
it off, turn the volume knob, and then turn it back on.  You wouldn't 
be able to hear the volume change as you were turning the knob; it's 
unlikely that you'd be able to get it to quite the right voume for 
you.  That's basically what we're giving people most of the time with 
delayed-apply dialogs.

For these reasons, I think Seth is right that, in the long run, most 
of GNOME's current dialog boxes should probably be changed to 
instant-apply controls, and that should be our recommendation based 
on the principle of direct manipulation.

That said, I think it's also a fact that both types of controls need 
to coexist indefinitely, and it is very important that we make a 
distinction between the two.  I think eliminating the row of buttons 
in instant-apply control boxes (not so much "dialogs" really :), as 
Colin suggested, might be a good way to do this.

> PS. Could someone do me a favour? I'd like to take a look at some of
> the instant-apply dialogs in Nautilus, but I don't have the program
> installed. It would be really great if someone could send me or put on
> the web some screenshots of specifically those dialogs which are
> instant-apply. Thanks.

Seth is right that this is really something you can't get a sense for 
via screenshots.  It's a behavior thing, not a visual thing.

Later,
Adam
--