Re: [Usability] Re: making the conceptual model more concrete

[Wesley Leggette <wleggette iit edu>]

On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 09:11, David Adam Bordoley wrote:
> Daniel Borgmann writes:
> > And when I listen to radio? Later you say that with documents, you mean
> > objects rather, so in this case I would see "the player" as the object
> > to work with (make it play funky tunes), not the music itself, which can
> > be everything from a document (audio file) to a CD or radio station. Am
> > I wrong? So if the actual media player is the object, would I go New ->
> > Funky Media Player to get it?
> 
> No, you're still looking at this wrong. You don't create a new media player, 
> there is no need to have the same interface to play iradio as the one to 
> play mp3's. In rb you have this idea of sources (which seth and I both 
> aren't all that crazy about). Instead in the object world you would have a 
> folder or search folder that contains links to all you iradio stations. 
> Perhaps this folder would have a special view that is presented similar to 
> rb' iradio player. The New Menu would probably be something like 
> New->Music-> Internet Radio Station from which you could create a link to a 
> new station. Also for container views (like the iradio folder) you might 
> have file->new radio station. I'm just conjecturing here to give you a view 
> of what it might look like, not what it has to look like though. 


So if you were to write some sort of new HIG for a document centric
model, what would it look like?







> 
> >  
> > 
> >> A game could even fit it into this model nicely. Assuming you have a "New" 
> >> menu it could have an option for Game and popup a dialog allowing you to 
> >> choose which game (or possibly a submenu). You could than save that game to 
> >> a folder, and the next time you want to continue the game you simply open 
> >> the existing game from the folder you have saved it to. Alternatively you 
> >> could start a new game from the New menu of course. 
> > 
> > Ok, that makes sense. In a very twisted way though. ;)
> > I wonder if it's really easier to find saved games on your desktop than
> > to start the game of your choice and then load the state of your choice. 
> > 
> 
> Well having a folder (or search folder) labeled games where you save your 
> existing games creates an interface that puts the user is far more control. 
> If you want to delete an existing game you simply drag it to the trash for 
> instance. 
> 
> > 
> >> > I believe that this would resemble reality much more closely, both "real
> >> > life" reality (we both work with documents and use devices in our lifes)
> >> > and computing reality (what people practically use their computers for).
> > 
> > Objects sound good to me. Because it would be pretty close to what I'm
> > thinking. If the calender can be an object, why not the media player
> > (radio?) or web browser? I find this a much more natural way to think
> 
> because the calendar is the object you are manipulting. You don't manipulate 
> a browser[1] or a media player, you manipulate web pages and mp3s/oggs 
> (which you just happen to be presented as a collection instead of individual 
> files because it makes manipulation easier). 
> 
> > The next question would be, how would those "non-document objects" be
> > handled? Should they constantly run and stay in memory or only if you
> > click them? Should they be represented by files while they are not
> > running? How could this all work and if they are permanent objects on my
> > desktop, how could I "put them aside" when I don't need them at the
> > moment and how would my computer deal with all the stuff on my desktop
> > when I can't "quit" them to free the memory? I really like the general
> > idea though.
> 
> This is where the magic of processes, swap space etc. all come into play. 
> Notice that it is impossible to "quit" epiphany to free memory. You can only 
> close individual windows, and it just happens that when you close all the 
> browser windows epiphany is removed from memory (but this is not something 
> the user need be aware of at all). In fact a user should never have to be 
> concerned with quiting an application to free memory or other system 
> resources. Try explaining processes, threads and memory usage to ordinary 
> users, they'll look at you like you're a genius and have absolutely no clue 
> what you are talking about :) The operating system is responsible for making 
> sure that memory is properly allocated, and that underused processes are 
> removed from memory and swapped to disk etc. Users shouldn't have to worry 
> about this at all. 
> 
> dave 
> 
> [1] Although I do admit the web does create some interesting problems here 
> and I've been thinking alot about how to solve them. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://lists.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability