[no subject]

  widget
       n : a device that very useful for a particular job [syn: {appliance},
            {contraption}, {contrivance}, {convenience}, {gadget}, {gizmo},
            {gismo}]

There's your real-world connection for you, right there. It *is* used
for physical objects too, you know.

"Controls" is very ambiguous and is used for many things in the both
the real and the computer world. It's a noun, it's a verb, it can mean
anything from the physical monitor controls, to the volume control, to
the control center.

(Calum pointed out that it was in the standard, though, which is a
good case for it.)

> * The widget concept is not just hard to describe, in most cases you can
> successfully describe these things by using the terminology of what they
> are (buttons, check boxes, etc.) which in most cases don't have the
> above problems.

"In most cases"? I'm talking about a particular case here.

> And since using "widget" in most cases isn't at all
> necessary and using terminology as "controls" can be used instead, there
> is *no* need to use this terminology in the user interface.

If we don't need to use it we shouldn't use it, I'm fine with that.

> > > Not all people are of the kind "oh here is something that I'm not
> > > familiar with, let's see what it does" but rather "oh here is something
> > > that I'm not familiar with, better not touch that".
> > 
> > Good! People unfamiliar with widgets *should* stick with the default
> > widgets and not touch that dialog - or they could choose to become
> > familiar with widgets. Depending on who they are, how their minds
> > work.
> > 
> > People wishing to change the appearance of widgets will pretty quickly
> > find out what widgets are.
> 
> So to let people be able to change the appearance of their computers,
> you want people to have to learn complex terminology first.

I'm not suggesting that they go to the library and study for hours. I
suggest we put the word in a situation where it's pretty clear from
context what it means (with a picture, preferably).

How would you go about if you were a user that wanted to change the
appearance of your widgets, and didn't know what the word "widget"
meant? You'd open the control center and look for the word
"appearance", I hope.

> > Having two conflicting sets of terminology is what should be
> > avoided. Consistency might be "the hobgoblin of small minds" to
> > Emerson, but it is one of the golden ideals for UI designers.
> 
> Exactly. And since there is no need for "widget" terminology, we don't
> need to use that.

We use it all the time among ourselves, don't we? So there's obviously
a need for it. If there's not a need for it in the UI then obviously
it shouldn't be used.

> Did you read the link to the chapter in the HIG that Seth pointed
> out, by the way?

Yes, and I've read it before.

> > Clarity is better than vagueness. Strange words are fit for strange
> > things.
> 
> And better words with real-world connection that can describe these
> complex things are much better, rather than imposing our invented
> special-case jargon terminology on end users.

The word "widget" is "special-case jargon" now? In that case, so's
"pointer" or "icons".

> Sigh.

:_(